On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 12:50:31PM +0900, Horms wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 04:33:02PM -0600, dann frazier wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 02:00 -0600, dann frazier wrote: > > > I think the best solution at this point is to build a > > > kernel-patch-2.4.27-ia64 (2.4.27-4) that reverts this change and prepare > > > a kernel-image along with it, therefore requiring no changes to > > > kernel-source-2.4.27. What do you think? > > > > > > Release Team: If I get these 2 builds into sid can we move these into > > > sarge with the other kernel updates?
> > I've uploaded kernel-patch-2.4.27-ia64 (2.4.27-4) and > > kernel-image-2.4.27-ia64 (2.4.27-10) to sid with only the changes > > described below - please approve both for sarge. > > > > kernel-patch-2.4.27-ia64 (2.4.27-4) unstable; urgency=medium > > . > > * remove-syscall-slot.patch: Revert the fix for CAN-2005-0137. This was > > added into kernel-source-2.4.27 (2.4.27-10). Version the build-depend > > to > > match. > > kernel-image-2.4.27-ia64 (2.4.27-10) unstable; urgency=medium > > . > > * Rebuild against kernel-tree-2.4.27-10 and > > kernel-patch-2.4.27-ia64 (2.4.27-4) > If you want to merge those changes into kernel-source-2.4.27 > (obviously for a future, non-sarge r0 release) please > feel free to do so. AIUI, he's saying that a fix he included in the kernel-patch package *was* merged, and this was the source of the trouble because the source would now be double-patched :) -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
