On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:03:49PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote: > En r?ponse ? Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org>: > > 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. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <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!''
Description: PGP signature