Kernels built - copy to -proposed?

[Steve Conklin]

On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 08:19 -0800, Brad Figg wrote:
> 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

I'd like for all of us to understand the concerns that each other has,
and make sure that we're following the right processes. Also, we have
certification and regression testing resources to be scheduled for
these kernels, and the sooner we can let them know what our schedule is,
the more easily they can manage their tasks.

Can we schedule a meeting as soon as possible on mumble and/or IRC, or
even a conference call to discuss this? I think that it would help us to
use a higher bandwidth channel than email to get this resolved.

Thanks,

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/attachments/20101206/2feebd67/attachment-0001.pgp