[Debian] Re: lenny updates

[Kir Kolyshkin]

Since it's gonna be ABI++ anyway, we'd like to take a look at what we 
have in git and maybe recommend some other critical/important bugfixes. 
Ideally we'd like Debian to just pull from our git (i.e. merge all the 
patches we have there), but as I understand this is not how things are 
working here.

So, will it be helpful / worth it if we come with such a list of highly 
recommended patches?

dann frazier wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 09:44:04PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
>   
>> Hi Dann
>>
>> You asked about the latest status and here it is.
>> Please tell which ones you want me to fix for the next lenny release of the kernel. I'll prepare
>> a patch and regression test that version for you.
>>     
>
> Wow Ola, thanks - great detail. I'll look this over and get back to
> you.
>
>   
>> #510787:
>> Refers to an other bug report that was not openvz specific. Should it be
>> forwarded to an non-openvz version of the kernel or kept here?
>> In any case I have added latest information to the report and told where
>> the problem has been forwarded.
>>
>> #511165:
>> Patch exist for 2.6.24 and 2.6.26. Fix is available in
>> http://git.openvz.org/?p=linux-2.6.26-openvz;a=commit;h=b5e1f74cee5bc2c45bdca53a7218fb8de89215dd
>> Not sure if this is an ABI breaker.
>>
>> #500876:
>> Fix available in:
>> http://git.openvz.org/?p=linux-2.6.26-openvz;a=commit;h=777e8164ebf8a03e43511983cdec472f8691a8af
>> Problem is about to be verified. Regression tested without problems seen.
>>
>> #503097:
>> Reported as http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=930
>> Seems to be a duplicate of #500876 above.
>>
>> #505174:
>> This is a request to go up to the latest version that includes fixes for
>> all the ones in this mail that describe that there is a fix available.
>> Unfortunatly there are ABI breakers...
>>
>> #508773:
>> Patch available in http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1054
>> Fix in http://git.openvz.org/?p=linux-2.6.24-openvz;a=commit;h=20bd90762d4df4a3c7c247b660c696bdd0a27709
>> Do not look like an ABI breaker to me.
>>
>> #500145:
>> Forwarded to http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1143
>> Marked as dupliate of http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1067
>> Not solved yet.
>>
>> #501985:
>> From: maximilian attems
>> the upstream nfs fixes are abi breakers and thus can't be integrated
>> at this point they will be for the first point release were abi
>> breaking will be allowed again.
>>
>> #494445:
>> There are a number of problems in this area. Fixes are available.
>> However some of them are ABI breakers.
>>
>> #500645:
>> Fix available in http://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1034
>> http://git.openvz.org/?p=linux-2.6.26-openvz;a=commit;h=6d18ba377cfa3e86ee830fe6a5fce52b8fd51039
>> I can not see that this is an ABI breaker, so it should be possibly to
>> apply this one without problem.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> // Ola
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 04:47:35PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
>>     
>>> hey,
>>>  The first lenny update	is scheduled for early	April, so I wanted to
>>> start coordinating the kernel update.
>>>
>>> Security
>>> --------
>>> The lenny-security branch is currently caught up on security issues,
>>> so I'd like to release a DSA later this week. I'd appreciate it if the
>>> individual arch maintainers could test builds from this branch ahead
>>> of time. The CVE-2009-0029 touch a lot of arch-specific code and
>>> though they applied pretty easily to the lenny kernel, it'd still be
>>> good to get some testing there. I noticed that the snapshot archive
>>> now has a lenny-security dist for some archs (thanks waldi)
>>>
>>> Stable
>>> ------
>>> There are several fixes queued up for a stable upload. I have a
>>> few more small fixes from jmm to review/commit as well, and it looks
>>> like tbm has an RTC regression fix pending. I've seen mentions of
>>> OpenVZ fixes from Ola/maks - what is the status of those? Are there
>>> any other changes people are working on?
>>>
>>> ABI changes
>>> -----------
>>> The security fixes don't currently break the ABI. It sounds like the
>>> openvz fixes are ABI-breaking?. If it is going to be ready for this
>>> update and does break the ABI, I'd also like to get the hppa
>>> large-module fix in. And, of course, we'll need to notify the d-i team
>>> of this change.
>>>
>>>       
>
>