On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 07:15:44PM -0500, Christopher M. Penalver wrote: > Daniel Letzeisen, thanks for your e-mail, and your trying to help with > triaging linux (Ubuntu) bugs. Regarding your comments: > > >" About a week ago, Ubuntu released kernel 2.6.32-61 for Lucid/10.04 > >Server as a security fix to this bug: > >https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1326367 > >Unfortunately, the fix caused a regression, which is correctly > >documented and tagged by an Ubuntu dev here: > >https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1327300 The > >regression caused a variety of symptoms such as hanging and loss of > >sound (there are a couple other bugs, but I don't have the link at > >the moment): > >https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1327220 > >https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1327014 > >https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1328360 > >Christopher Penalver quickly marked those bugs as "Won't Fix" and > >said Lucid Desktop wasn't supported anymore (even though the kernel > >is part of the Server package and an update had just been pushed)." > > This is because all the bugs you are marking duplicates of 1327220 > aren't using Lucid Server, but Lucid Desktop, which is EoL as of > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases . As a member of Ubuntu Bug Control > you should have already been keenly aware of this link. However, if > there has been a change in the End of Life for Lucid Desktop I've not > been made aware of, I'll be more than happy to reverse the Status and > triage appropriately.
How did you make the determination that a system is a 10.04 Server or a 10.04 Desktop? There is no easy way to make that distinction as far as I know. Additionally, the security team publishes a list of 5 year supported packages[1] found at their FAQ[2]. Any package in that list is supported and if there is a regression in that package due to a security update it should be fixed. Subsequently, the distinction between a Server and a Desktop seems rather moot, the support is provided on a per package basis not installation type. > >"Worse, when I tried to mark those bugs as a duplicate of 1327300, he > >removed my duplicate links (twice), because he was worried it might > >prove his flimsy excuse to close the bugs as wrong." > > Please leave the conjecture off this mailing list. > > "The users deserve to know that their problems are caused by the > recent kernel update, and that a fixed kernel is in the lucid-proposed > repo." > > Agreed. However, the users are in a dangerous position as already > e-mailed to you by Steve Langasek (Canonical) in > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1327014/comments/13 > , which would support my initial Status as noted earlier to you in > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1327014/comments/8 > that you decided to override. While the users are in a dangerous position, that doesn't make the regression due to a security update a "Won't Fix" bug. That regression should be and is still being address. If I were working on these bugs I would add a comment regarding 10.04 desktop packages being End of Life while marking them as a duplicate of bug 1327300 (if they are for certain a duplicate). If not then a comment about testing the new kernel from -proposed, while mentioning End of Life, and a status of Incomplete seems appropriate. [1] https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-security/ubuntu-cve-tracker/master/view/head:/lucid-supported.txt [2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/FAQ#Official%20Support -- Brian Murray Ubuntu Bug Master
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
