Hi Michael. Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> (2015-01-27): > > From aa57d3cc600de9d9ff3e318dc4beed33cfcfd9f3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> > > Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:29:36 +0100 > > Subject: [PATCH] Document the jessie branching. > > > > --- > > debian/changelog | 8 +++++++- > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog > > index e78827c..7c18a73 100644 > > --- a/debian/changelog > > +++ b/debian/changelog > > @@ -1,7 +1,13 @@ > > -busybox (1:1.22.0-10) UNRELEASED; urgency=low > > +busybox (1:1.22.0-14+deb8u1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low > > > > + [ Michael Tokarev ] > > * lzop-add-overflow-check-CVE-2014-4607.patch (Closes: #768945) > > > > + [ Cyril Brulebois ] > > + * Branch jessie from master to only include the security fix; other changes > > + between 1:1.22.0-9 and 1:1.22.0-14 are invasive and not needed for jessie. > > + Cheat a bit with the revision number to avoid bumping the epoch. > > So you're continuing to ruin my (hard in this case) work, spreading > lies (invasive) and confirming you're against others working on > debian. > > That's fine with me too. I can continue maintain local copy of > busybox the same way as I did before I took over its maintenance, > because in debian it was in *awful* state and mostly unusable. > > (For the record: all the recent changes I made in busybox is needed > for jessie, I especially and carefully selected the minimal set. We > had it in broken state for too long.) If some release manager insist that we go for -14 as a basis for CVE-2014-9645 (#776186), we can probably do that. But. I'm having a very hard time trying to grasp how fixing jessie-ignore bugs is needed for jessie (#768876, in -10 and -11); and how making extra super sure we don't build against a broken glibc (in -12, -13, -14) is *needed* for jessie, which is now guaranteed to have a sufficient version. It actually migrated some many months before your november uploads: [2014-06-16] Accepted 2.19-2 in unstable (medium) (Aurelien Jarno) [2014-06-17] Accepted 2.19-3 in unstable (medium) (Aurelien Jarno) [2014-06-23] eglibc 2.19-3 MIGRATED to testing (Britney) If that's about buildds not being upgraded, that's a buildd issue, not a busybox issue to be fixed in jessie. The rest of the changes are for a longstanding lintian error (and I'm pretty sure that reworking the debhelper options is *not* something accepted in freeze guidelines), and for a previous security bugfix (CVE-2014-4607); the latter of which I proposed keeping (and that's how we ended up discussing branching and version numbers with Ivo). You may disagree with my views all you want, but I'd really appreciate if you could stop pretending my intentions are ruining your work and preventing others from working on Debian. You were past the various deadlines, the changes look to me (see above) both invasive and not needed for jessie, and I've tried to state that in the changelog so that others don't wonder too much about what's happening. Feel free to propose a different wording if you feel my patch's one is inaccurate or offending. Mraw, KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature