Re: developer's guide to security updates
Previously Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> Does this mean that unstable would actually lag behind testing for
> security updates?
It can happen (and has happened in the past). Personally I don't care,
we've always said that unstable is not going to be secure and it never
> To fix that, I suggest that there be some way to tell the security
> infrastructure to install a new version to unstable at the same time as it
> puts it in testing.
I disagree, the maintainer can easily upload a new package to unstable
after a security advisory has been released. No need to complicate the
dak system even more.
> Also, what will happen with security updates to testing once testing
> has been unfrozen after the release of woody?
They'll probably get rejected since it does not make any sense to upload
security fixes to testing if it isn't frozen. Security fixes need to be
tested just like other packages and will have to go through unstable.
/email@example.com This space intentionally left occupied \
| firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org