On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 07:27:13PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > [ 2 ] Choice 1: wordpress should not be included in etch due to bug #413269 > [ 1 ] Choice 2: wordpress should be included in etch in spite of bug #413269 > [ 3 ] Choice 3: Further discussion > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rationale: Neil McGovern [0] has indicated it should be supportable, having already done testing-security support for it, and Kai Hendy as the non-DD Debian maintainer has indicated both he and upstream [1] are expecting to continue support the package. That seems sufficient to count the package as security supportable for etch to me. As far as advising versus overruling goes, I think inclusion in etch is the RMs' decision, and without an opinion from them, we've got a case of "Developers' jurisdictions overlap" so rather than trying to work out whether it's fair to overrule the security team or the maintainer (both of which I'd rather not), I'm just giving my opinion on what's the best course of action. Cheers, aj [0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=413926;msg=99 [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=413926;msg=44
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature