Re: Will woody ever become stable?
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Well, the goal that was meant to have passed was "no outstanding RC bugs
> in base", but with things like #126441 (outstanding glibc security bug
> for around a month, along with some other unfiled RC issues that've
> been around longer), and #123345 (security bug in base-passwd, that
> seems to have a patch now), we've pretty much regressed back to the
> "we're not remotely ready to release" stage. And if we can't manage
> to fix security issues in required packages promptly, especially when
> patches are available, I don't see much point worrying about all the
> other things that need doing.
It's easy to fix them: NMU.
But the normal rules prohibit NMUs. Bug Squashing parties were
intended to help with this, but the release manager has to call them.
And then there are some key packages maintained by people who have
opted out of the bug squashing party NMU process. I think we need to
rethink that, in the case of bugs that have been open for a "while".