Re: Bug#976094: buster-pu: package grub2/2.02+dfsg1-20+deb10u3

2021-01-16 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Mon, 2021-01-11 at 15:57 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Hi, > > Adam D. Barratt (2020-12-31): > > Sorry for the delay in picking this back up. > > Same here. > > > As grub produces udebs, this will need a KiBi-ack, so tagging and > > CCing accordingly. > > If I'm getting this right, the

Re: Bug#976094: buster-pu: package grub2/2.02+dfsg1-20+deb10u3

2021-01-11 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Hi, Adam D. Barratt (2020-12-31): > Sorry for the delay in picking this back up. Same here. > As grub produces udebs, this will need a KiBi-ack, so tagging and > CCing accordingly. If I'm getting this right, the udeb part shouldn't be much of an issue, but the change regarding the fresh

Re: Bug#976094: buster-pu: package grub2/2.02+dfsg1-20+deb10u3

2020-12-31 Thread Colin Watson
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 04:46:43PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > I do have a _slight_ concern that someone with a crazily small /boot > will end up being broken by the new backup code, but agree that it is > better than the current situation. It's true that this is a possibility. I'd like to

Re: Bug#976094: buster-pu: package grub2/2.02+dfsg1-20+deb10u3

2020-12-31 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Control: tags -1 + confirmed d-i On Sun, 2020-11-29 at 16:57 +, Colin Watson wrote: > Following the security updates in July for the "BootHole" set of > vulnerabilities, we had a number of reports of failures to boot after > the upgrade. These weren't fundamentally a new problem, in that >