Luk Claes <firstname.lastname@example.org> (25/03/2009): > Michael Meskes wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 04:24:59PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > >> And while the new package is kept out, the package currently in the > >> archive might not be suitable at all. In the case of a single binary ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Or the package staying in the archive might even have a security > > problem. Yes, even that happened. > > Well, it's a bad sign that people are mixing the fixing of RC/security > bugs with new (binary) packages unless the bugs cannot be fixed > without them (which usually is *not* the case). Just to clarify my initial thought, I was talking about RC-bugginess due to possible license/copyright issues, those which would warrant a REJECT. Mraw, KiBi.
Description: Digital signature