On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 08:14:01AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 10:16:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 10:23:52AM +0100, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
> > > These people do not 'own' these jobs, do they?
> > Well, yes, they do, just as package maintainers 'own' their packages. The
> > people who do the work are the ones that get to make the decisions.
> So I take it you'd support zero-day NMUs for jobs in Debian where there are
> release critical bugs in the work being done?
No more so than for things like dpkg, glibc and gcc.
But none of the buildds have RC-equivalent issues at the moment (and I
can't recall any buildds ever having RC-equivalent issues that can't be
ignored for a month by changing the way the testing scripts deal with
a particular arch), so that's not terribly relevant. I can't think of
anything else that'd be covered either.
Of course, even if the issue weren't irrelevantly trivial, solving it that
way wouldn't be a good idea since it'd make an exploit of any developer
account equivalent to an exploit of all of Debian's infrastructure.
Why bother getting root if you can do everything as non-root anyway?
> - Matt
> Tongue planted firmly in cheek
Do you really think trolling is going to benefit anyone? If you've got a
topic you want to discuss seriously and civilly, please do. If not, please
don't.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature