Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #81742 > unrolled thread

Uploading linux (6.6.15-1)

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.kernel

Contents

  Uploading linux (6.6.15-1) Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2024-02-02 21:10 +0100
    Re: Uploading linux (6.6.15-1) Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2024-02-03 00:40 +0100
      Re: Uploading linux (6.6.15-1) Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2024-02-03 09:10 +0100

#81742 — Uploading linux (6.6.15-1)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

I would like to upload linux version 6.6.15-1 ideally over the weekend
to unstable. The new version imports two versions of the 6.6.y stable
series (which is upstream an LTS) up to 6.6.15.  It contains a larger
amount of changes as it consisted of versions released after the merge
window upstream for 6.8. Some CVEs are addressed in this update:
CVE-2023-46838, CVE-2023-50431, CVE-2024-1085 and CVE-2024-1085.

As there is an upcoming pont release on weekend of 10th of february
and as the linux uploads for both bullseye 11.9 and bookworm 12.5
needs to be ready over the weekend, those should get priority in terms
of having the signed packages available (the rest is done). So maybe
6.6.15-1 should be accetepd to be build and then signed packages done
only after we have the linux-signed-{i386,amd64,arm64} for both
bullseye-pu and bookworm-pu.

One thing is still unresolved, thus additonally to the explicit CC to
kibi, as well including debian-boot. We have the armel d-i situation
not yet resolved, debian-boot folks, do you have any imput on the
situation from the thread in 
https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2024/01/msg00089.html ?
My gut feeling from what was discussed is that nobody will ever use
the d-i on armel.

There are no other packaging changes apart patches refresh (and
upstream applied patches) for the rt featureset due to the 6.6.14 and
6.1.15 imports.

Regards,
Salvatore

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#81744

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> (2024-02-02):
> One thing is still unresolved, thus additonally to the explicit CC to
> kibi, as well including debian-boot. We have the armel d-i situation
> not yet resolved, debian-boot folks, do you have any imput on the
> situation from the thread in 
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2024/01/msg00089.html ?
> My gut feeling from what was discussed is that nobody will ever use
> the d-i on armel.

I'm not sure how much time armel will stick around (for existing
systems), but it looks to me that d-i/armel is no longer relevant.


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org)            <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#81747

Hi,

On Sat, Feb 03, 2024 at 12:32:08AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> (2024-02-02):
> > One thing is still unresolved, thus additonally to the explicit CC to
> > kibi, as well including debian-boot. We have the armel d-i situation
> > not yet resolved, debian-boot folks, do you have any imput on the
> > situation from the thread in 
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2024/01/msg00089.html ?
> > My gut feeling from what was discussed is that nobody will ever use
> > the d-i on armel.
> 
> I'm not sure how much time armel will stick around (for existing
> systems), but it looks to me that d-i/armel is no longer relevant.

Thanks for your reply on d-i side of this. So i suggest we move ahead
with transitioning 6.6.y to testing accordingly.

Thanks a lot!

Regards,
Salvatore

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.kernel

csiph-web