Steve asked on IRC about doing a -12 for 4.0r0. There are a few RC bugs and a few security bugs that we could fix before then.
Of those present on IRC (vorlon, fjp, fs and myself), there was a consensus to proceed. Does anyone on the kernel team object to this? The details... * This would not involve a spin of d-i[1] * No ABI changes would be permitted (obviously) * We would upload to unstable * I've already merged my changes from the etch-security branches onto the etch branch. There are other pending CVEs, but nothing I think is a must before etch (but I might add others while -12 is open) * vorlon would like to see this uploaded over the weekend, I propose an upload before Monday's dinstall. waldi: is it possible to get snapshot builds of the etch branch going for this? * I also propose we use the requirements in my etch-updates proposal for fixes (must have bug filed, must be important or greater) Here's the current list of stuff I'd been tracking for an etch update - this doesn't mean they were approved by the SRM team, just that they are on my list of things to review: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED];which=tag&data=dkt-etch-update [1] <dannf> does it mean a spin of d-i? <vorlon> no <dannf> (no ABI change would be allowed of course) <vorlon> it's likely that fjp won't approve, but I've done the due diligence for the GPL source issues, and I see no reason to re-spin d-i over a simple kernel upgrade <fjp> Unless there are functional fixes in there too that would improve d-i, I guess I can live with it. -- dann frazier | HP Open Source and Linux Organization -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
