Hi Steve I have checked the -9 version and it do not apply cleanly. However it is just a few files that have problems.
When we update the patch, is it important that the patch just contain a few changes so it is easy to verify, or can it be as big as the difference between 028test006.3 and 028test007.1? Regards, // Ola On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 01:42:07AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > 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/ > > -- --------------------- Ola Lundqvist --------------------------- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD | | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | | http://opalsys.net/ UIN/icq: 4912500 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / --------------------------------------------------------------- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
