On Sun, 2017-01-29 at 14:30 +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 22:04 +0100, iqwue Wabv wrote: > > upstream of i-s-p suggests that this bug should be reassigned to kernel > > package. > > ps. > > said 27.01.2017 on https://github.com/hadess/iio-sensor-proxy/issues/134 > > Yes. I am aware of that. The Debian Kernel Policy, usually, is to not include > changes that aren't in the kernel already. And this fix seems to have gone for > 4.10 or 4.11, whereas the Debian Stretch kernel will be based on 4.9 LTS. > > I'm adding debian-kernel to this reply, in case the policy has changed.
It has never been as strict as you suggest, backports from mainline are ok too (and always have been AFAIK) if justified. For especially urgent or important fixes then "in a maintainers tree and so well on the way to mainline" can be the minimum necessary bar. > If this fix gets included in the Linux 4.9 LTS tree upstream, then Debian > would > automatically pull it for Stretch inclusion. This is true too, but there's no particular need to wait for that process to unfold. > But, at this moment, this isn't even in Linus's tree. Can you point to the commit in the relevant upstream kernel maintainer's tree? Ian.
