Re: Bug#173824: Not good.
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 07:45:43PM -0800, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 07:36, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > [text quoted from a private, off-list email]
There was nothing in my email that I mind being sent to debian-devel, and I
would have given permission for you to post it here if you had asked, but to
send a private email to a public list without permission is considered quite
rude.
> I never said I'd be unwilling to contribute to such an effort. I simply
> saw no way that I could possibly be of any use. I'm not exactly
> experienced in singlehandedly implementing Debian policy changes.
You don't need a policy in order to do work. If you want something to get
done, the best thing to do is to start doing it, and if it works out well,
it'll become a convention. Then, if it makes sense, maybe that will
eventually become something more official.
In this case, you're claiming that there should be some security update
service for testing. So, start providing a security update service for
testing, and see how it goes. You should get a good idea of the
cost/benefit ratio by doing this.
> I have come up with an alternative where I could be useful, though. If
> there is a way of getting a list of all package versions with urgency=high
> that were installed into unstable in the last dinstall run, I'd be willing
> to write a script to notify the system administrator if any of those
> packages are installed (and, therefore, in need of an immediate upgrade).
> Then the sysadmin can pick the packages out of unstable as needed.
>
> How's that sound?
You can get all of this information by subscribing to debian-devel-changes,
which receives a message with a copy of the .changes file for every upload
(at least accepted uploads). The .changes file format is trivial to parse.
> P.S. I'm not subscribed to debian-devel, so please Cc me in any replies
> there.
You can set the Mail-Followup-To: header for this purpose, some MUAs will do
this automatically for you.
--
- mdz
Reply to: