[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "testing" improvements

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:03:49PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> En r?ponse ? Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>:
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:48:28PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> > > I said let packages into testing for architectures where nothing
> > > prevent them to. Why would mipsel failures block x86 packages,
> > > for instance?
> > Because we only have one source per suite. Consider, eg, what happens
> > if
> > you have a security problem in a package, and the current source
> > doesn't
> > build on some architectures.
> AFAIK, we only fix security problems for stable (and unstable obviously).

The same problem occurs in unstable; you'll frequently find security
problems unfixed on some architectures because of unrelated build failures.

In any event, not fixing security problems for testing is a bug, not a
feature, and not one that we want to further entrench.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
        you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''

Attachment: pgpfKsgwv35Ui.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: