On 12/05/2010 11:28 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 12:17:56PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: >> This is an issue for non-kernel SRUs, as they might be built against >> libraries in -proposed with new symbols which aren't yet available in >> -updates. As the kernel doesn't have runtime dependencies, this case >> can't happen. The only corner case that I can see for this is if we >> have a new toolchain bit in -proposed (like gcc or libtool) which > > I disagree here -- the ABI-tracking packages may include things outside the > kernel too. I'm significantly more comfortable with doing the builds where > they cannot possibly hit an -updates vs -security skew problem. > > Additionally, this gives the kernel team and QA significantly higher > autonomy and an ability to not block on archive admins when starting the > testing cycle. > >> isn't verified yet, so that the new kernel gets built with that. This >> happens very seldomly, though, and I don't think it's an important >> enough case to warrant making the normal kernel review process a lot >> harder? > > I maybe do not understand what these tools are, but I thought the kernel > was reviewed from -proposed before being promoted to -updates? If that's > the case, than this change doesn't affect that since when the kernel is > ready it would be copied into -proposed already. > > -Kees >
Adding Kate to the distribution list. Brad -- Brad Figg [email protected] http://www.canonical.com -- technical-board mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
