Manoj Srivastava wrote: > At this point, my inclination would be to defer to the > judgement of the release team as to whether or not this bug is deemed > RC Just for the record: the release team had already expressed his view (in a sense): in Oct, there was already a (informal) discussion in #d-release, and the opinion was that this bug 295252 was not RC at all. More in detail: in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=395252;msg=10 Joey Hess wrote: > severity 395252 important > thanks > > The testing security team tracks probably hundreds of possibly security > relevant code copies in data/embedded-code-copies in their svn repo. As > long as the security teams know about code copies, they can deal with > updates due to them. Getting rid of embedded code copies is a good thing > to do, but it's not an RC bug. > > This may change to RC post-etch. then Moritz raised the severity again: Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > severity 395252 serious > thanks > No, we have already way too much work and artifially > introducing more is > not a option. For Sarge there was no clean solution, > as ffmpeg provided > only a static libavcodec, but since this exists, > there's no reason not to use it. (*) so Joey Hess replied: > How is mplayer different than the 200 or so other items listed in > embedded-code-copies? Other than only getting through incoming now. > I discussed this on #debian-release and people seemed to think it wasn't > and this shouldn't be RC. a.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature