Re: Food for thought - SECURITY (design flaw?)

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Food for thought - SECURITY (design flaw?)
From: Petr Cech <cech@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:43:46 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] 20010212204345.A2115@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Mail-followup-to: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 84itmh50ip.fsf@snoopy.apana.org.au>; from bam@debian.org on Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 03:03:42PM +1100
References: <[🔎] 20010211030436.A3627@overdue.dhis.net> <[🔎] 84itmh50ip.fsf@snoopy.apana.org.au>

On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 03:03:42PM +1100 , Brian May wrote:
> How long should it normally take urgency=high packages to get through
> to testing (assuming auto builders don't encounter problems)?

1-2 month? you know. everythink you Depends: on must be there too :((

				Petr Cech
-- 
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
           cech@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz

<vaidhy> Debian - It is all about choice, baby!!

Reply to:

References:
- Food for thought - SECURITY (design flaw?)
  - From: Lazarus Long <lazarus@overdue.dhis.net>
- Re: Food for thought - SECURITY (design flaw?)
  - From: Brian May <bam@debian.org>

Prev by Date: source packages that aren't
Next by Date: Re: source packages that aren't
Previous by thread: Re: Food for thought - SECURITY (design flaw?)
Next by thread: Re: Food for thought - SECURITY (design flaw?)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread