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

Re: *seconded* Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

* David Schmitt (david@schmitt.edv-bus.at) wrote:
> Another factor might be security support:
> At least one buildd (plus hot-standby) must be available [under strict 
> DSA/Security administration] which is fast enough to build security updates 
> without infringing on vendor-sec embargoes.

I'm not 100% sure that's quite right...  As I understand it, the people
maintaining buildds need to be trusted and perhaps to sign an NDA or
something saying they won't go blab to the world about a package going
through their testing queue.  I don't believe that's quite the same as
requiring that the buildd be under DSA, unless DSA is expanded to
include what I describe above...


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: