Clint Byrum <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 14:00 -0800, Mark Foster wrote: >> On 01/25/2011 11:48 AM, Oliver Brakmann wrote: >> > I'd like to ask for your opinion whether it would be worthwhile to file >> > a bug on this. On the one hand, this is fixed upstream already, on the >> > other hand, both puppet and kvm are in main, and Lucid might benefit >> > from an SRU. Is this SRU worthy? >> > > Yes it is, please do! > >> +1 since per https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates it qualifies >> for both of these criteria in my opinion. >> # Bugs which do not fit under above categories, but (1) have an >> obviously safe patch and (2) affect an application rather than critical >> infrastructure packages (like X.org or the kernel). >> # For Long Term Support releases we regularly want to enable new >> hardware. Such changes are appropriate provided that we can ensure to >> not affect upgrades on existing hardware. For example, modaliases of >> newly introduced drivers must not overlap with previously shipped drivers. >> >> However it would also be necessary & wise to review the full change log >> entries since there is likely way more changed in 1.5.8 (vs. 1.5.6 or 7) >> than this one value change. > > Right, I'd suggest that we just cherry pick the patch, as long as it > isn't too invasive.
I'd agree too. Please make sure you file a bug and follow the rest of those procedures described in that SRU wiki document, and this should go painlessly. Dustin -- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
