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

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #87887 > unrolled thread

Uploading linux (6.12.32-1)

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

Contents

  Uploading linux (6.12.32-1) Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2025-06-05 22:10 +0200
    Re: Uploading linux (6.12.32-1) Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2025-06-05 22:30 +0200
      Re: Uploading linux (6.12.32-1) Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2025-06-07 09:30 +0200

#87887 — Uploading linux (6.12.32-1)

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

Hi

I would like to upload the next version of the 6.12.y stable series to
unstable (once linux/6.12.30-1 migrates to testing). There are two
upstream stable versions imported, 6.12.31 and 6.12.32 where 6.12.31
was of considerable size (note there is onging merge window for 6.16
ongoing and from experience the first few stable series are bigger
than usual, this might not be the best timing for trixie).

There will be some changes on the packaging side:

   * [amd64] drivers/acpi: Make ACPI_HED built-in
   * [amd64] Add drivers/pinctrl/intel to kernel-image udeb (Closes: #1106658)
   * linux-image, linux-headers: Use linux-run-hooks instead of run-parts
     (Closes: #1101733)
   * drivers/net/can: Enable can327 as a module
   * drivers/gnss: Enable GNSS_MTK_SERIAL and GNSS_USB as modules
     (Closes: 1106744)

We know that for beeing ready for trixie we need to find yet a
solution for
https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/merge_requests/1524 (and
to allow multiple uploads of one upstream version for instance if we
need to pick a single fix for security reasons and needs to be pushed
earlier than the next upstream stable version).

Regards,
Salvatore

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#87888

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

Hi,

Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> (2025-06-05):
> I would like to upload the next version of the 6.12.y stable series to
> unstable (once linux/6.12.30-1 migrates to testing). There are two
> upstream stable versions imported, 6.12.31 and 6.12.32 where 6.12.31
> was of considerable size (note there is onging merge window for 6.16
> ongoing and from experience the first few stable series are bigger
> than usual, this might not be the best timing for trixie).

(Yeah, at this point it seems wise to let .30 migrate.) I don't have a
precise timing for the next d-i release (there are things to consider
which I have little control over), but given we're getting deeper and
deeper into the freeze, maybe we're closer to the point where we should
anticipate stopping kernel uploads, and staging them for publication via
either trixie-proposed-updates (once 13.0 is published) or DSA depending
on the security impacts?

Anyway, at this point, still no objection to an extra upload.

> We know that for beeing ready for trixie we need to find yet a
> solution for
> https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/merge_requests/1524 (and
> to allow multiple uploads of one upstream version for instance if we
> need to pick a single fix for security reasons and needs to be pushed
> earlier than the next upstream stable version).

Oh, new challenges. G'luck!

Just out of curiosity: there is no plan to change what the versioning
looks like in bookworm(-proposed-updates) or bookworm-security, right?


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

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

#87892

Hi Cyril,

On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 10:23:08PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> (2025-06-05):
> > I would like to upload the next version of the 6.12.y stable series to
> > unstable (once linux/6.12.30-1 migrates to testing). There are two
> > upstream stable versions imported, 6.12.31 and 6.12.32 where 6.12.31
> > was of considerable size (note there is onging merge window for 6.16
> > ongoing and from experience the first few stable series are bigger
> > than usual, this might not be the best timing for trixie).
> 
> (Yeah, at this point it seems wise to let .30 migrate.) I don't have a
> precise timing for the next d-i release (there are things to consider
> which I have little control over), but given we're getting deeper and
> deeper into the freeze, maybe we're closer to the point where we should
> anticipate stopping kernel uploads, and staging them for publication via
> either trixie-proposed-updates (once 13.0 is published) or DSA depending
> on the security impacts?
> 
> Anyway, at this point, still no objection to an extra upload.

Ack.

Yes we need to agree on when to stop doing further stable updates for
trixie and postpone them for a DSA or trixie-proposed update, and I'm
all ear when you think we should stop. As hopefully clear, we want to
do here our best to support the release team and debia-boot work
towards the trixie release.

> 
> > We know that for beeing ready for trixie we need to find yet a
> > solution for
> > https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/merge_requests/1524 (and
> > to allow multiple uploads of one upstream version for instance if we
> > need to pick a single fix for security reasons and needs to be pushed
> > earlier than the next upstream stable version).
> 
> Oh, new challenges. G'luck!

Well yes we are bit late on this.

> Just out of curiosity: there is no plan to change what the versioning
> looks like in bookworm(-proposed-updates) or bookworm-security, right?

No there is no plan to change the versioning for bookworm and
bookworm-security. And note the version for trxie imports will remain
still e.g. 6.12.33-1.

Regards,
Salvatore

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web