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

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #83770 > unrolled thread

Uploading linux (6.10.7-1)

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

Contents

  Uploading linux (6.10.7-1) Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2024-08-31 12:20 +0200
    Re: Uploading linux (6.10.7-1) Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2024-09-03 17:30 +0200
      Re: Uploading linux (6.10.7-1) Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2024-09-03 23:00 +0200
        Re: Uploading linux (6.10.7-1) Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2024-09-04 08:00 +0200
          Re: Uploading linux (6.10.7-1) Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2024-09-04 08:30 +0200
            Handling next linux upload to unstable (was: Re: Uploading linux  (6.10.7-1)) Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2024-09-13 21:10 +0200
              Re: Handling next linux upload to unstable Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2024-09-14 02:00 +0200
                Re: Handling next linux upload to unstable Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2024-09-14 18:30 +0200
                  Re: Handling next linux upload to unstable Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2024-09-15 00:40 +0200
                    Re: Handling next linux upload to unstable Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2024-09-15 22:30 +0200
                      Re: Handling next linux upload to unstable Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2024-09-15 23:10 +0200
                        Re: Handling next linux upload to unstable Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2024-09-15 23:30 +0200
                      Re: Handling next linux upload to unstable Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2024-09-20 15:50 +0200
                        Re: Handling next linux upload to unstable Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2024-09-22 11:20 +0200
                          Re: Handling next linux upload to unstable Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2024-09-22 14:40 +0200
          Re: Uploading linux (6.10.7-1) Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2024-09-05 22:10 +0200

#83770 — Uploading linux (6.10.7-1)

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

Hi,

I would like to upload linux version 6.10.7-1 to unstable. This is the
import of the stable series up to 6.10.7. It addresses as well two for
now known CVEs assigned for issues fixed with 6.10.7.

o packaging changes are done in this update (apart a patch referesh
for offsets).

Regards,
Salvatore

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#83820

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

Ciao Salvatore,

[ftpmaster@ dropped.]

Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> (2024-08-31):
> I would like to upload linux version 6.10.7-1 to unstable. This is the
> import of the stable series up to 6.10.7. It addresses as well two for
> now known CVEs assigned for issues fixed with 6.10.7.
> 
> No packaging changes are done in this update (apart a patch refresh
> for offsets).

Once you reach a situation were linux is a candidate for migration and
reaches testing, please sync with Steve and me before further uploads.

We'd like to try and get debian-installer into unstable and into
testing, to clear the path for SB-related things (as requested by
Steve).


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

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

#83824

Hi Cyril,

On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 05:28:38PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Ciao Salvatore,
> 
> [ftpmaster@ dropped.]
> 
> Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> (2024-08-31):
> > I would like to upload linux version 6.10.7-1 to unstable. This is the
> > import of the stable series up to 6.10.7. It addresses as well two for
> > now known CVEs assigned for issues fixed with 6.10.7.
> > 
> > No packaging changes are done in this update (apart a patch refresh
> > for offsets).
> 
> Once you reach a situation were linux is a candidate for migration and
> reaches testing, please sync with Steve and me before further uploads.
> 
> We'd like to try and get debian-installer into unstable and into
> testing, to clear the path for SB-related things (as requested by
> Steve).

Right, this is sensible. We have currently the FTBFS for 6.10.7-1 for
riscv64 and arm64 which needs to be sorted. We either can have this
fixed isolated or do a 6.10.8-1 with the build failure fixes? Is this
near enough timewise?

Regards,
Salvatore

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

#83826

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

Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> (2024-09-03):
> Right, this is sensible. We have currently the FTBFS for 6.10.7-1 for
> riscv64 and arm64 which needs to be sorted. We either can have this
> fixed isolated or do a 6.10.8-1 with the build failure fixes? Is this
> near enough timewise?

I don't have any preferences regarding a future wholesale 6.10.y or just
a new revision of the current upstream release. It'd probably just make
sense to avoid upgrading to 6.11.y since I'd guess we would get more
things to look at.

I'll let Steve comment on the preferred timings.


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

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

#83827

Hi Cyril, Steve,

On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 07:51:40AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> (2024-09-03):
> > Right, this is sensible. We have currently the FTBFS for 6.10.7-1 for
> > riscv64 and arm64 which needs to be sorted. We either can have this
> > fixed isolated or do a 6.10.8-1 with the build failure fixes? Is this
> > near enough timewise?
> 
> I don't have any preferences regarding a future wholesale 6.10.y or just
> a new revision of the current upstream release. It'd probably just make
> sense to avoid upgrading to 6.11.y since I'd guess we would get more
> things to look at.

Yes, 6.11.y won't go to unstable anyway before 6.11 is released. So
that will take still some weeks. That means for unstable we will
continue following the 6.10.y series for now.

In any case Aurelien worked on the FTBFS issue:
https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/merge_requests/1185

So we would be able to have either 6.10.7-2 or 6.10.8-1 at your
preference.

Aiming though to make 6.11.y and once ready 6.12.y go timely to
unstable as the later one is expected/likely the expected LTS version.

> I'll let Steve comment on the preferred timings.

Ack!

Regards,
Salvatore

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

#83926 — Handling next linux upload to unstable (was: Re: Uploading linux (6.10.7-1))

Hi Cyril, Steve,

On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 08:27:44AM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Hi Cyril, Steve,
> 
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 07:51:40AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> (2024-09-03):
> > > Right, this is sensible. We have currently the FTBFS for 6.10.7-1 for
> > > riscv64 and arm64 which needs to be sorted. We either can have this
> > > fixed isolated or do a 6.10.8-1 with the build failure fixes? Is this
> > > near enough timewise?
> > 
> > I don't have any preferences regarding a future wholesale 6.10.y or just
> > a new revision of the current upstream release. It'd probably just make
> > sense to avoid upgrading to 6.11.y since I'd guess we would get more
> > things to look at.
> 
> Yes, 6.11.y won't go to unstable anyway before 6.11 is released. So
> that will take still some weeks. That means for unstable we will
> continue following the 6.10.y series for now.
> 
> In any case Aurelien worked on the FTBFS issue:
> https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/merge_requests/1185
> 
> So we would be able to have either 6.10.7-2 or 6.10.8-1 at your
> preference.
> 
> Aiming though to make 6.11.y and once ready 6.12.y go timely to
> unstable as the later one is expected/likely the expected LTS version.
> 
> > I'll let Steve comment on the preferred timings.
> 
> Ack!

So we are now there. linux/6.10.9-1 should now be able to migrate to
testing, no major issues were reported so far, and I think you can let
it go either with a hint or automatically to testing.

In parallel I'm still working on importing other versions, 6.10.10 was
released and is ready packaging wise. But now I would like to further
coordinate with you.

Would it be now a good time for planned d-i changes, sho should I hold
back the 6.10.10-1 and later uploads? If so, could you give me (please
CC me so i do not miss it) a ping when it is again fine to do an
upload?

Please let me know, and if there is something else I blocking you from
my side.

Once 6.11 would be released and we know it's stabilised in
experimental we would like to move it to unstable and make the way
free in experimental for 6.12-rcX, as the later is in particular
important to make 6.12.y ready as this is expected to be the next LTS
upstream stable version and so the one aimed for trixie.

Regards,
Salvatore

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

#83931 — Re: Handling next linux upload to unstable

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

Cc += debian-boot@, quoting in full accordingly.

Hi Salvatore,

Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> (2024-09-13):
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 08:27:44AM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > Hi Cyril, Steve,
> > 
> > On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 07:51:40AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > > Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> (2024-09-03):
> > > > Right, this is sensible. We have currently the FTBFS for 6.10.7-1 for
> > > > riscv64 and arm64 which needs to be sorted. We either can have this
> > > > fixed isolated or do a 6.10.8-1 with the build failure fixes? Is this
> > > > near enough timewise?
> > > 
> > > I don't have any preferences regarding a future wholesale 6.10.y or just
> > > a new revision of the current upstream release. It'd probably just make
> > > sense to avoid upgrading to 6.11.y since I'd guess we would get more
> > > things to look at.
> > 
> > Yes, 6.11.y won't go to unstable anyway before 6.11 is released. So
> > that will take still some weeks. That means for unstable we will
> > continue following the 6.10.y series for now.
> > 
> > In any case Aurelien worked on the FTBFS issue:
> > https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/merge_requests/1185
> > 
> > So we would be able to have either 6.10.7-2 or 6.10.8-1 at your
> > preference.
> > 
> > Aiming though to make 6.11.y and once ready 6.12.y go timely to
> > unstable as the later one is expected/likely the expected LTS version.
> > 
> > > I'll let Steve comment on the preferred timings.
> > 
> > Ack!
> 
> So we are now there. linux/6.10.9-1 should now be able to migrate to
> testing, no major issues were reported so far, and I think you can let
> it go either with a hint or automatically to testing.

Indeed, linux{,-signed-{amd64,arm64}} migrated.

> In parallel I'm still working on importing other versions, 6.10.10 was
> released and is ready packaging wise. But now I would like to further
> coordinate with you.
> 
> Would it be now a good time for planned d-i changes, sho should I hold
> back the 6.10.10-1 and later uploads? If so, could you give me (please
> CC me so i do not miss it) a ping when it is again fine to do an
> upload?

I'm trying to see if I can get everything lined up for an upload that
would have a chance to migrate, which I think would be enough to unblock
Steve on the shim* front.

We'll need at least #1081698 addressed (or someone from the release team
happy to force debian-installer into testing despite the missing build).

I don't want to disrupt anything else going on, and I don't plan on
getting a d-i release out alongside that upload, so I'm not freezing
udeb-producing packages; hopefully, if the build situation is under
control, an `urgent` hint on my side should give debian-installer a
decent chance to migrate.

If Steve confirms having src:debian-installer into testing is sufficient
for the shim* fun, feel free to upload src:linux as soon as you spot the
migration. I'll try and keep an eye out and ping you once that happens,
though.

> Please let me know, and if there is something else I blocking you from
> my side.

At this point, I don't think so. Once we know whether the proposed
approach works for armel, we should be ready for i386 (see other
thread).

> Once 6.11 would be released and we know it's stabilised in
> experimental we would like to move it to unstable and make the way
> free in experimental for 6.12-rcX, as the later is in particular
> important to make 6.12.y ready as this is expected to be the next LTS
> upstream stable version and so the one aimed for trixie.

Alright, thanks for the information.


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

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

#83989 — Re: Handling next linux upload to unstable

Hey guys,

On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 01:49:46AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> (2024-09-13):
>> 
>> So we are now there. linux/6.10.9-1 should now be able to migrate to
>> testing, no major issues were reported so far, and I think you can let
>> it go either with a hint or automatically to testing.
>
>Indeed, linux{,-signed-{amd64,arm64}} migrated.
>
>> In parallel I'm still working on importing other versions, 6.10.10 was
>> released and is ready packaging wise. But now I would like to further
>> coordinate with you.
>> 
>> Would it be now a good time for planned d-i changes, sho should I hold
>> back the 6.10.10-1 and later uploads? If so, could you give me (please
>> CC me so i do not miss it) a ping when it is again fine to do an
>> upload?
>
>I'm trying to see if I can get everything lined up for an upload that
>would have a chance to migrate, which I think would be enough to unblock
>Steve on the shim* front.

Nod.

>We'll need at least #1081698 addressed (or someone from the release team
>happy to force debian-installer into testing despite the missing build).
>
>I don't want to disrupt anything else going on, and I don't plan on
>getting a d-i release out alongside that upload, so I'm not freezing
>udeb-producing packages; hopefully, if the build situation is under
>control, an `urgent` hint on my side should give debian-installer a
>decent chance to migrate.
>
>If Steve confirms having src:debian-installer into testing is sufficient
>for the shim* fun, feel free to upload src:linux as soon as you spot the
>migration. I'll try and keep an eye out and ping you once that happens,
>though.

That looks great for me, thanks.

>> Please let me know, and if there is something else I blocking you from
>> my side.
>
>At this point, I don't think so. Once we know whether the proposed
>approach works for armel, we should be ready for i386 (see other
>thread).
>
>> Once 6.11 would be released and we know it's stabilised in
>> experimental we would like to move it to unstable and make the way
>> free in experimental for 6.12-rcX, as the later is in particular
>> important to make 6.12.y ready as this is expected to be the next LTS
>> upstream stable version and so the one aimed for trixie.
>
>Alright, thanks for the information.

Nod.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
  Mature Sporty Personal
  More Innovation More Adult
  A Man in Dandism
  Powered Midship Specialty

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

#83994 — Re: Handling next linux upload to unstable

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

Hi,

Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> (2024-09-14):
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 01:49:46AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > I'm trying to see if I can get everything lined up for an upload
> > that would have a chance to migrate, which I think would be enough
> > to unblock Steve on the shim* front.
> 
> Nod.

Great.

> > We'll need at least #1081698 addressed (or someone from the release
> > team happy to force debian-installer into testing despite the
> > missing build).

That happened earlier today. Then britney was waiting on reproducible
tests, which might fail depending on r-b.o autobuilder configuration,
which I'm *not* tracking down today. I've used ignore-reproducible
accordingly, which by the way `hint clean` doesn't know about.

> > I don't want to disrupt anything else going on, and I don't plan on
> > getting a d-i release out alongside that upload, so I'm not freezing
> > udeb-producing packages; hopefully, if the build situation is under
> > control, an `urgent` hint on my side should give debian-installer a
> > decent chance to migrate.
> >
> > If Steve confirms having src:debian-installer into testing is
> > sufficient for the shim* fun, feel free to upload src:linux as soon
> > as you spot the migration. I'll try and keep an eye out and ping you
> > once that happens, though.
> 
> That looks great for me, thanks.

Then I think my work here is done:

    kibi@respighi:~$ dak ls debian-installer -s testing,unstable -a source
    debian-installer | 20240914      | testing    | source
    debian-installer | 20240914      | unstable   | source

I'll let you give a final green light to kernel people.


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

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

#84008 — Re: Handling next linux upload to unstable

On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 12:31:12AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> (2024-09-14):
>> 
>> That looks great for me, thanks.
>
>Then I think my work here is done:
>
>    kibi@respighi:~$ dak ls debian-installer -s testing,unstable -a source
>    debian-installer | 20240914      | testing    | source
>    debian-installer | 20240914      | unstable   | source
>
>I'll let you give a final green light to kernel people.

Cool. I've been a little delayed here (family medical emergency this
weekend), but I'm ready to start a build now.

Kibi: just checking, are you happy for me to call this trixie d-i
alpha 1?

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"I used to be the first kid on the block wanting a cranial implant,
 now I want to be the first with a cranial firewall. " -- Charlie Stross

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

#84010 — Re: Handling next linux upload to unstable

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

Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> (2024-09-15):
> Kibi: just checking, are you happy for me to call this trixie d-i
> alpha 1?

As communicated a few times in previous mails already: not at all.


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

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

#84011 — Re: Handling next linux upload to unstable

On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 11:08:34PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> (2024-09-15):
>> Kibi: just checking, are you happy for me to call this trixie d-i
>> alpha 1?
>
>As communicated a few times in previous mails already: not at all.

Understood, I'm glad I checked. I'll call this something else for my
own personal testing then.

Thanks for clarifying!

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"I can't ever sleep on planes ... call it irrational if you like, but I'm
 afraid I'll miss my stop" -- Vivek Das Mohapatra

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

#84041 — Re: Handling next linux upload to unstable

Hi Steve,

On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 09:26:07PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 12:31:12AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> >Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> (2024-09-14):
> >> 
> >> That looks great for me, thanks.
> >
> >Then I think my work here is done:
> >
> >    kibi@respighi:~$ dak ls debian-installer -s testing,unstable -a source
> >    debian-installer | 20240914      | testing    | source
> >    debian-installer | 20240914      | unstable   | source
> >
> >I'll let you give a final green light to kernel people.
> 
> Cool. I've been a little delayed here (family medical emergency this
> weekend), but I'm ready to start a build now.
> 
> Kibi: just checking, are you happy for me to call this trixie d-i
> alpha 1?

Hope you and family are doing better already now.

Just double-checking as well, given debian-installer moved to testing,
is it now fine to do other src:linux uploads to unstable or are we yet
waiting to move with other changes in?

I'm happy to wait, but I think we would like to to at least another
6.10.y upload to unstable, 6.11-1~exp1 was earlier uploaded to
experimental by Ben.

Regards,
Salvatore

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

#84064 — Re: Handling next linux upload to unstable

Hey Salvatore!

On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 03:46:29PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
>
>Hope you and family are doing better already now.

Thanks!

>Just double-checking as well, given debian-installer moved to testing,
>is it now fine to do other src:linux uploads to unstable or are we yet
>waiting to move with other changes in?
>
>I'm happy to wait, but I think we would like to to at least another
>6.10.y upload to unstable, 6.11-1~exp1 was earlier uploaded to
>experimental by Ben.

Apologies for the slight delay - doing test builds here showed up a
couple of debian-cd bugs that needed fixing. All done now, though -
please go ahead!

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"Every time you use Tcl, God kills a kitten." -- Malcolm Ray

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

#84066 — Re: Handling next linux upload to unstable

Hi,

On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 10:16:11AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hey Salvatore!
> 
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 03:46:29PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> >
> >Hope you and family are doing better already now.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> >Just double-checking as well, given debian-installer moved to testing,
> >is it now fine to do other src:linux uploads to unstable or are we yet
> >waiting to move with other changes in?
> >
> >I'm happy to wait, but I think we would like to to at least another
> >6.10.y upload to unstable, 6.11-1~exp1 was earlier uploaded to
> >experimental by Ben.
> 
> Apologies for the slight delay - doing test builds here showed up a
> couple of debian-cd bugs that needed fixing. All done now, though -
> please go ahead!

Thanks a lot, then I'm preparing the next upload.

Regards,
Salvatore

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

#83847

Hey guys,

On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 07:51:40AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> (2024-09-03):
>> Right, this is sensible. We have currently the FTBFS for 6.10.7-1 for
>> riscv64 and arm64 which needs to be sorted. We either can have this
>> fixed isolated or do a 6.10.8-1 with the build failure fixes? Is this
>> near enough timewise?
>
>I don't have any preferences regarding a future wholesale 6.10.y or just
>a new revision of the current upstream release. It'd probably just make
>sense to avoid upgrading to 6.11.y since I'd guess we would get more
>things to look at.
>
>I'll let Steve comment on the preferred timings.

Let's go, I think - if the 6.10.8-1 upload builds and migrates OK then
let's try and get a d-i release built with that. I should have time in
the next week or two (at least) to help pull that through.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"When C++ is your hammer, everything looks like a thumb." -- Steven M. Haflich

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web