Cyril Brulebois
2024-09-14 00:00:01 UTC
Cc += debian-boot@, quoting in full accordingly.
Hi Salvatore,
testing, no major issues were reported so far, and I think you can let
it go either with a hint or automatically to testing.
Indeed, linux{,-signed-{amd64,arm64}} migrated.
would have a chance to migrate, which I think would be enough to unblock
Steve on the shim* front.
We'll need at least #1081698 addressed (or someone from the release team
happy to force debian-installer into testing despite the missing build).
I don't want to disrupt anything else going on, and I don't plan on
getting a d-i release out alongside that upload, so I'm not freezing
udeb-producing packages; hopefully, if the build situation is under
control, an `urgent` hint on my side should give debian-installer a
decent chance to migrate.
If Steve confirms having src:debian-installer into testing is sufficient
for the shim* fun, feel free to upload src:linux as soon as you spot the
migration. I'll try and keep an eye out and ping you once that happens,
though.
approach works for armel, we should be ready for i386 (see other
thread).
Cheers,
Hi Salvatore,
Hi Cyril, Steve,
a new revision of the current upstream release. It'd probably just make
sense to avoid upgrading to 6.11.y since I'd guess we would get more
things to look at.
Yes, 6.11.y won't go to unstable anyway before 6.11 is released. So
that will take still some weeks. That means for unstable we will
continue following the 6.10.y series for now.
https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/merge_requests/1185
So we would be able to have either 6.10.7-2 or 6.10.8-1 at your
preference.
Aiming though to make 6.11.y and once ready 6.12.y go timely to
unstable as the later one is expected/likely the expected LTS version.
So we are now there. linux/6.10.9-1 should now be able to migrate toRight, this is sensible. We have currently the FTBFS for 6.10.7-1 for
riscv64 and arm64 which needs to be sorted. We either can have this
fixed isolated or do a 6.10.8-1 with the build failure fixes? Is this
near enough timewise?
I don't have any preferences regarding a future wholesale 6.10.y or justriscv64 and arm64 which needs to be sorted. We either can have this
fixed isolated or do a 6.10.8-1 with the build failure fixes? Is this
near enough timewise?
a new revision of the current upstream release. It'd probably just make
sense to avoid upgrading to 6.11.y since I'd guess we would get more
things to look at.
that will take still some weeks. That means for unstable we will
continue following the 6.10.y series for now.
https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/merge_requests/1185
So we would be able to have either 6.10.7-2 or 6.10.8-1 at your
preference.
Aiming though to make 6.11.y and once ready 6.12.y go timely to
unstable as the later one is expected/likely the expected LTS version.
I'll let Steve comment on the preferred timings.
Ack!testing, no major issues were reported so far, and I think you can let
it go either with a hint or automatically to testing.
In parallel I'm still working on importing other versions, 6.10.10 was
released and is ready packaging wise. But now I would like to further
coordinate with you.
Would it be now a good time for planned d-i changes, sho should I hold
back the 6.10.10-1 and later uploads? If so, could you give me (please
CC me so i do not miss it) a ping when it is again fine to do an
upload?
I'm trying to see if I can get everything lined up for an upload thatreleased and is ready packaging wise. But now I would like to further
coordinate with you.
Would it be now a good time for planned d-i changes, sho should I hold
back the 6.10.10-1 and later uploads? If so, could you give me (please
CC me so i do not miss it) a ping when it is again fine to do an
upload?
would have a chance to migrate, which I think would be enough to unblock
Steve on the shim* front.
We'll need at least #1081698 addressed (or someone from the release team
happy to force debian-installer into testing despite the missing build).
I don't want to disrupt anything else going on, and I don't plan on
getting a d-i release out alongside that upload, so I'm not freezing
udeb-producing packages; hopefully, if the build situation is under
control, an `urgent` hint on my side should give debian-installer a
decent chance to migrate.
If Steve confirms having src:debian-installer into testing is sufficient
for the shim* fun, feel free to upload src:linux as soon as you spot the
migration. I'll try and keep an eye out and ping you once that happens,
though.
Please let me know, and if there is something else I blocking you from
my side.
At this point, I don't think so. Once we know whether the proposedmy side.
approach works for armel, we should be ready for i386 (see other
thread).
Once 6.11 would be released and we know it's stabilised in
experimental we would like to move it to unstable and make the way
free in experimental for 6.12-rcX, as the later is in particular
important to make 6.12.y ready as this is expected to be the next LTS
upstream stable version and so the one aimed for trixie.
Alright, thanks for the information.experimental we would like to move it to unstable and make the way
free in experimental for 6.12-rcX, as the later is in particular
important to make 6.12.y ready as this is expected to be the next LTS
upstream stable version and so the one aimed for trixie.
Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois (***@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
Cyril Brulebois (***@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant