Kernels built - copy to -proposed?

[Brad Figg]

On 12/05/2010 11:28 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 12:17:56PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
>> This is an issue for non-kernel SRUs, as they might be built against
>> libraries in -proposed with new symbols which aren't yet available in
>> -updates. As the kernel doesn't have runtime dependencies, this case
>> can't happen. The only corner case that I can see for this is if we
>> have a new toolchain bit in -proposed (like gcc or libtool) which
>
> I disagree here -- the ABI-tracking packages may include things outside the
> kernel too. I'm significantly more comfortable with doing the builds where
> they cannot possibly hit an -updates vs -security skew problem.
>
> Additionally, this gives the kernel team and QA significantly higher
> autonomy and an ability to not block on archive admins when starting the
> testing cycle.
>
>> isn't verified yet, so that the new kernel gets built with that. This
>> happens very seldomly, though, and I don't think it's an important
>> enough case to warrant making the normal kernel review process a lot
>> harder?
>
> I maybe do not understand what these tools are, but I thought the kernel
> was reviewed from -proposed before being promoted to -updates? If that's
> the case, than this change doesn't affect that since when the kernel is
> ready it would be copied into -proposed already.
>
> -Kees
>

Adding Kate to the distribution list.

Brad
-- 
Brad Figg brad.figg at canonical.com http://www.canonical.com