Re: RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should not apply

To: 438179@bugs.debian.org, debian-ctte@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should not apply
From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 21:52:51 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] 20071206205251.GK30144@mails.so.argh.org>
Mail-followup-to: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>, 438179@bugs.debian.org, debian-ctte@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20071206204121.GA29565@volta.aurel32.net>
References: <[🔎] 18264.22407.712056.919310@davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk> <[🔎] 20071206204121.GA29565@volta.aurel32.net>

* Aurelien Jarno (aurelien@aurel32.net) [071206 21:41]:
> Please DON'T NMU the glibc, we will do the necessary in the next upload
> to unstable. Does this also apply to stable?

The tech ctte didn't do a decision about stable, though it seems that
most of us consider it appropriate.

So I would prefer the "usual way": First upload the fix to unstable,
wait till it is properly tested and then get it into the next stable
point release via d-release (and give the SRMs the possibility to test
it, I'm not speaking with my SRM hat on here).


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should not apply
  - From: Josip Rodin <joy@debbugs.entuzijast.net>

References:
- RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should not apply
  - From: Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>
- Re: RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should not apply
  - From: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>

Prev by Date: Re: Call for Votes (getaddrinfo)
Next by Date: Re: Call for Votes (getaddrinfo)
Previous by thread: Re: RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should not apply
Next by thread: Re: RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should not apply
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread