On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 10:35:04AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 12:33:33AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 08:45:21AM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > > > Do you know if there will be more updates to the kernel after -8?
> > Yes, there will. > Ok, good to know. Upsream and I are subscribed to the package > tracking system for such uploads so we should be informed quite quickly. You've probably seen by now that -9 has been uploaded. There will definitely be a -10 as well for etch, there are still outstanding RC bugs that need fixing; but -9 needs to be the final ABI and therefore shouldn't (I hope) be including any more large upstream merges. > > > If so I need to be prepared as that will probably break this patch. > > Why is this patch so fragile? If it breaks that easily, it hardly seems > > releasable -- how do we protect against it being broken by security updates? > the patch is very big (about 700k) and applies to huge amount of places in the > kernel. From 2.6.19 somekind of hook functionality is in place as > far as I understand, but for 2.6.18 it is not possible to use that. I do not > know if it solves all the problems though. > The problem have arized everytime the kernel team change from > 2.6.18 to 2.6.18.3 and then to 2.6.18.6. I do not think a problem have > arized when just doing minor updates, but I do not know for sure and it > depends on the update. Well, the lack of surety is what has me concerned. > But security updates may need to be coordinated. Is the security team aware that this is the case? > I assume that same problem can arize for vserver and xen patch, but those > patches are a part of the kernel source nowdays. Yes, which means any problems with those patches are detected at build time for the linux-2.6 package -- clearly not the case for openvz right now. On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 02:10:02PM +0300, Kir Kolyshkin wrote: > One failed hunk in net/ipv6/udp.c -- looks like the patch from 2.6.18.5 > is not applied to linux-source-2.6.18-7: > * http://tinyurl.com/2n9554 > Six failed hunks in net/ipv4/ip_tables.c -- same, looks like a few > patches from 2.6.18.y-stable are not applied to linux-source-2.6.18-7. I > see at least the following ones: > * http://tinyurl.com/2l5sae > * http://tinyurl.com/38bgxa > * http://tinyurl.com/2wx9jz > I have just checked that after applying four patches linked above, > kernel-patch-openvz-028test007.1 applies cleanly on top of > linux-source-2.6.18-2.6.18-7. > Thus the question: are you tracking the -stable tree, and how closely do > you follow it? This bug was re-reported because the current version of the openvz patch package doesn't apply against the /previous/ version of the linux-2.6 package. The common case here has been that the openvz patch hasn't been updated to apply to the current version of the linux-2.6 package. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
