Re: Newbie Ramblings (Rehashing testings security "problems")
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Petr Cech wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 05:05:46PM -0500 , James Di Toro wrote:
> > This could be used to short circuit the 14 day wait for testing. I would
>
> why? there is alread low=10, medium=5, high=3 critital=1 days. What good
> would it be?
>
> > propese that it only short-circuit that time frame if the upstream version
> > is the same in both testing and unstable.
>
> anyway. can you get all the release arch recompiled in a day *including* all
> dependencies and get them included into testing?
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, James Di Toro wrote:
> > Fairly inocious at first, but what if there were an additonal keyword
> > there. What if we added a keyword of 'security-update', with a default of
>
> It is not needed. urgency=critical gets handled ASAP, AFAIK. Unless you want
> security-update to bypass some of the other tests that might block the
> upload to testing... which I am not sure [it] is a good idea.
As I said, Newbie Rambling. I wasn't aware that the urgency
controlled how many days it would take. But to some degree I was
suggesting that security-update override some checks, but only if the
upstream version # was the same.
--
Till Later,
Jake
Reply to: