Re: GRUB 2 (Re: Bits from the release team: Release goals, schedule, state of the union)
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:32:20AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: GRUB 2 should be the default bootloader on x86. Hi, Could you fill in a goal page similar to ones in http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals? Thanks, Neil -- A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q. Why is top posting bad? gpg key - http://www.halon.org.uk/pubkey.txt ; the.earth.li A40F862E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GRUB 2 (Re: Bits from the release team: Release goals, schedule, state of the union)
Am Freitag, den 04.09.2009, 15:43 +0100 schrieb Neil McGovern: On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:32:20AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: GRUB 2 should be the default bootloader on x86. Hi, Could you fill in a goal page similar to ones in http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals? I just did: http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/GRUB2asDefault -- Felix Zielcke Proud Debian Maintainer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bits from the release team: Release goals, schedule, state of the union
Steffen Joeris steffen.joe...@skolelinux.de writes:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:51:48 am Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Release Goals
=
[...]
- kFreeBSD:
Debian 6.0 Squeeze should be the first Debian release shipping with
a non-Linux kernel.
Out of curiosity, how is security support working for this and who is
providing it?
We [1] were hoping that kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} would be handled like i386
and amd64 and be supported by the security team.
As we know that the security team's manpower is limited, we acknowledge
this by asking you for any concers in supporting a architecture. For the
Squeeze cycle, this hasn't been done yet [2], as we haven't decided yet
which of the old architectures can't be supported from a release team
point of view.
Including kFreeBSD architectures in the release has been in discussion
for some time now, and we didn't see any official security team position
on this yet, thus assumed there were no (big) concers. Should you have
see some, please inform us soon.
Thanks,
Marc
Footnotes:
[1] Release Team
[2] see http://release.debian.org/squeeze/arch_qualify.html
--
BOFH #86:
Runt packets
pgpANVIDROQMc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Bits from the release team: Release goals, schedule, state of the union
* Steffen Joeris (steffen.joe...@skolelinux.de) [090826 08:53]: For kernel-security support, we have Dann Frazier in the security team, who is also working in the kernel team (and of course other kernel team members might help on security behind the curtain). So your basic concern is: Who will support the kbsd-specific packages (kernel plus kernel-near userland)? (The other packages shouldn't be an issue, or?) Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bits from the release team: Release goals, schedule, state of the union
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:58:24 pm Andreas Barth wrote: * Steffen Joeris (steffen.joe...@skolelinux.de) [090826 08:53]: For kernel-security support, we have Dann Frazier in the security team, who is also working in the kernel team (and of course other kernel team members might help on security behind the curtain). So your basic concern is: Who will support the kbsd-specific packages (kernel plus kernel-near userland)? (The other packages shouldn't be an issue, or?) Yeah basically, I mean they should be supported from within the security team, but I was wondering, whether we have a particular individual appointed for it (like for the linux kernel) or how the details should look like. I just reread my first response to Marc and saw that it could have been read as very sarcastic and rude, my apologies that wasn't the intention I wrote that sentence in a hurry. Cheers Steffen P.S. The comments/ideas/questions in this thread are my own, not the view of the security team. P.P.S. We could probably drop -devel from this thread. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Bits from the release team: Release goals, schedule, state of the union
Hi Marc
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:23:09 pm Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Steffen Joeris steffen.joe...@skolelinux.de writes:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:51:48 am Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Release Goals
=
[...]
- kFreeBSD:
Debian 6.0 Squeeze should be the first Debian release shipping with
a non-Linux kernel.
Out of curiosity, how is security support working for this and who is
providing it?
We [1] were hoping that kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} would be handled like i386
and amd64 and be supported by the security team.
As we know that the security team's manpower is limited, we acknowledge
this by asking you for any concers in supporting a architecture. For the
Squeeze cycle, this hasn't been done yet [2], as we haven't decided yet
which of the old architectures can't be supported from a release team
point of view.
Including kFreeBSD architectures in the release has been in discussion
for some time now, and we didn't see any official security team position
on this yet, thus assumed there were no (big) concers. Should you have
see some, please inform us soon.
For kernel-security support, we have Dann Frazier in the security team, who is
also working in the kernel team (and of course other kernel team members might
help on security behind the curtain).
Now I am not sure how to do it for another kernel, because the rest of the
team is usually busy with the rest of the archive. Maybe it would be a good
idea to see, if someone from the kfreeBSD kernel team would be willing to
help? Also, I guess Dann or someone else from the sec team should probably
comment on this as well.
Cheers
Steffen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bits from the release team: Release goals, schedule, state of the union
Heya, - New source package format: Make it possible to build all packages using dpkg source format 3.0 (quilt). This seems like something that requires packagers to take some action, or at least check their packages for this possibility? However, I've never heard about this new source format until now. Did I miss something, or will there be separate announcements about this still? A quick read of the dpkg-source manpage about the source format 3 didn't really help my understanding of what would be required to attain this goal. Could you elaborate a bit? Perhaps in the next update? Gr. Matthijs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bits from the release team: Release goals, schedule, state of the union
Hi, On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: - New source package format: Make it possible to build all packages using dpkg source format 3.0 (quilt). This seems like something that requires packagers to take some action, or at least check their packages for this possibility? However, I've never heard about this new source format until now. Did I miss something, or will there be separate announcements about this still? You missed several announces on debian-devel-announce (you are supposed to be subscribed and reading) and a status update on -devel recently. Start with http://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0 to get more information. A quick read of the dpkg-source manpage about the source format 3 didn't really help my understanding of what would be required to attain this goal. Could you elaborate a bit? Perhaps in the next update? Basically fix all those bugs: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=hert...@debian.org;tag=3.0-quilt-by-default (And continue to maintain other packages sanely to not expand that list) Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bits from the release team: Release goals, schedule, state of the union
Matthijs Kooijman matth...@stdin.nl writes: - New source package format: Make it possible to build all packages using dpkg source format 3.0 (quilt). This seems like something that requires packagers to take some action, or at least check their packages for this possibility? However, I've never heard about this new source format until now. Did I miss something, You missed something: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/04/msg4.html A quick read of the dpkg-source manpage about the source format 3 didn't really help my understanding of what would be required to attain this goal. Could you elaborate a bit? Perhaps in the next update? The documentation for all goals is reachable from the release goal list I referenced in the bits mail [1], in this case you can find more information on http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/NewDebFormats There are links to a description of the new format as well as pointers to bugs filed for known problems. Marc Footnotes: [1] http://release.debian.org/squeeze/goals.txt -- BOFH #154: You can tune a file system, but you can't tune a fish (from most tunefs man pages) pgpNnPT0o1LCd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bits from the release team: Release goals, schedule, state of the union
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:21:00AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: You missed something: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/04/msg4.html On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:18:05AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: You missed several announces on debian-devel-announce (you are supposed to be subscribed and reading) and a status update on -devel recently. Ah, thanks. From reading there, and the other pointers you've given, I understand that this release goal is mostly focused on applications that work with source packages (dpkg, apt, svn-buildpackage, etc.), not on changing regular packages to (be able to) use the new source formats. I had expected changes to be required in all packages, which is why I didn't remember that particular announcement (I had read it and concluded it did not affect my package). I think the source of my confusion was (and is) caused by use of the phrase all packages in the release goal Have all packages in the archive buildable using the new source package formats.. Perhaps phrasing it as Having the archive and all package-support tools support the new source package formats would be better? Or is the second step in this release goal of actually using the new source format for all (or at least a lot?) packages? Thanks for your time! Matthijs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bits from the release team: Release goals, schedule, state of the union
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: Or is the second step in this release goal of actually using the new source format for all (or at least a lot?) packages? Yes. I'd like to achieve this by changing dpkg-source to build 3.0 (quilt) or 3.0 (native) source packages by default (generating a source package using the old format would then require putting 1.0 in debian/source/format). Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bits from the release team: Release goals, schedule, state of the union
Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes: On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: Or is the second step in this release goal of actually using the new source format for all (or at least a lot?) packages? Yes. I'd like to achieve this by changing dpkg-source to build 3.0 (quilt) or 3.0 (native) source packages by default (generating a source package using the old format would then require putting 1.0 in debian/source/format). Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Is that actualy a release goal for squeeze? If so then I would prefer if that where stated specifically and seperately to the goal of allowing 3.0 source packages at all. Allowing 3.0 format is long overdue imho and from what has been told just needs patches to be applied to DAK to b completed. Changing packages I believe will happen naturally after that and I would rather see a gradual adoption of the new format than brute forcing maintainer to change their packages before squeeze. The new format has enough advantages to stand on its own. Change dh_make and other package creating helpers so new packages default to 3.0 (quilt). Since blindly changing dpkg-source to use 3.0 format breaks packages maybe a better change would be to make a missing debian/source/format first a warning and then an error. But maybe that is just me. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bits from the release team: Release goals, schedule, state of the union
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Is that actualy a release goal for squeeze? Yes, that's the release goal because it requires work on many packages. There's no point in having a release goal stating wait until ftpmasters apply buxy's patch to allow 3.0 source packages. Since blindly changing dpkg-source to use 3.0 format breaks packages maybe a better change would be to make a missing debian/source/format first a warning and then an error. But maybe that is just me. Many transition scenario are possible, I chosed one that makes most sense to me. It's not going to be disruptive if we take the time to prepare for the switch. This is what this release goal is about. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bits from the release team: Release goals, schedule, state of the union
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 08:23:09AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Steffen Joeris steffen.joe...@skolelinux.de writes:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:51:48 am Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Release Goals
=
[...]
- kFreeBSD:
Debian 6.0 Squeeze should be the first Debian release shipping with
a non-Linux kernel.
Out of curiosity, how is security support working for this and who is
providing it?
We [1] were hoping that kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} would be handled like i386
and amd64 and be supported by the security team.
As we know that the security team's manpower is limited, we acknowledge
this by asking you for any concers in supporting a architecture. For the
Squeeze cycle, this hasn't been done yet [2], as we haven't decided yet
which of the old architectures can't be supported from a release team
point of view.
Including kFreeBSD architectures in the release has been in discussion
for some time now, and we didn't see any official security team position
on this yet, thus assumed there were no (big) concers. Should you have
see some, please inform us soon.
The scope of security support for FreeBSD is different than for Linux:
FreeBSD doesn't treat local denial of service issues as security issues,
but rather as regular bugs (which is fine for 90% of all systems).
I don't think we can do anything about this, so this needs to be documented
in release notes.
Other than that I don't see a problem. Security issues in the FreeBSD
kernel are infrequent. Testing can be a problem, so we need someone from
the kfreebsd porters to build and test the update for us. Since Aurelien
has been doing that for the existing - unsupported - packages in Lenny
already (in the form of stable-proposed-updates), everything should be
fine if he continues to do so.
Also we should aim at only supporting one kernel for FreeBSD in the Squeeze
release. (I don't know the current state, but IIRC there were multiple
kfreebsd kernel packages in the past).
Cheers,
Moritz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
GRUB 2 (Re: Bits from the release team: Release goals, schedule, state of the union)
Hi, On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:51:48PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: There are some other goals in the queue for which we would like to have a bit more information; individual mails requesting that have been sent out. If you know of something you want to see as release goal for Squeeze, mail us on debian-rele...@. GRUB 2 should be the default bootloader on x86. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
