[kernel-sec-discuss] improved upstream tracking

[Michael Gilbert]

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:54:10 -0700 dann frazier wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 04:53:37PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > since it has been quite useful tracking upstream stable releases lately,
> > would it make sense to give that it's own line.  right now, the
> > 'upstream' line is often very cluttered.  an example improvement would
> > be:
> > 
> >   upstream-mainline: released (2.6.32-rc4) []
> >   upstream-stable: released (2.6.31.5) []
> > 
> > or since there are multiple stable releases:
> > 
> >   2.6.27-upstream-stable:
> >   2.6.30-upstream-stable: released (2.6.30.8) []
> >   2.6.31-upstream-stable: released (2.6.31.5) []
> > 
> > linux-next could also be tracked, but i don't know if that would
> > provide anything useful:
> > 
> >   upstream-next: pending []
> > 
> > the boilerplate could be updated in sync with upstream changes; i.e when
> > an old upstream-stable is no longer supported, it would be removed from
> > the boilerplate, and when a new upstream-stable is released it gets
> > added to boilerplate.
> > 
> > just some thoughts on streamlining things.  let me know what you
> > think.
> 
> I don't think it will make much of an improvement for Debian updates,
> and I don't think I'd personally spend much time keeping these fields
> up to date - but, if you want to do it (esp if you plan to use this to
> make sure fixes get into the upstream stable trees), then I'm cool w/
> it.

ok, now that i've thought about it a bit more, it probably only makes
sense to track the upstreams for versions that debian is currently
supporting. at the moment, that would just be 2.6.30 and 2.6.31 since
they are the respective testing and unstable kernels. tracking
testing's kernel probably isn't too useful now, but will become more
relevant as the squeeze release approaches.

mike