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

Re: Linux Core Consortium

Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:

> Kurt Roeckx <Q@ping.be> writes:
>> On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 08:29:16PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>> Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> writes:
>>> > The problem is not the autobuilder infrastructure per se.  It is that
>>> > testing and unstable are largely in sync (!).  This, combinded with the
>>> > fact that testing must not have versions newer than unstable (they
> Why aren't security uploads for testing done as "testing-security
> unstable"? Why leave the bug open in sid when fixing it in testing?
> The issue of testing being newer only arises when sarge and sid have
> the same version, otherwise you have the t-p-u case with testing being
> lower.
>>> > will then be rejected) means testing-security wouldn't work at the
>>> > moment.
>>> How is that different from testing-proposed-updates?
>> Because they're ussualy for fixing bugs in testing where there is
>> an other version in unstable?  Why else would you be using
>> testing-proposed-updates?
>> Kurt
> MfG
>         Goswin

Small update:

The patch (see other post in this thread) and talk on irc solved this
so no need to explain it again.


Reply to: