Re: spamassassin update
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 06:52:02PM +1100, Matt Palmer wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:12:06PM +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
> > On 02/02/2015, Matt Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 09:49:15AM -0800, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> > >> Let me know if I should go ahead with this upload, or if anything else
> > >> is needed.
> > >
> > > You should not go ahead with this upload.
> > >
> > >> diff -Nru spamassassin-3.3.1/debian/changelog
> > >> spamassassin-3.3.1/debian/changelog
> > >> --- spamassassin-3.3.1/debian/changelog 2013-03-12 08:06:16.000000000
> > >> -0700
> > >> +++ spamassassin-3.3.1/debian/changelog 2015-01-31 22:51:43.000000000
> > >> -0800
> > >> @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
> > >> +spamassassin (3.3.1-1.2) squeeze-lts; urgency=medium
> > >> +
> > >> + * Export perl_version to rules. (Closes: 771408)
> > >
> > > Based on my reading of that bug report, it is not an appropriate bug to be
> > > addressed in a security update.
> >
> > So, is the "LTS" only for security updates, and, not for fixing
> > software problems?
>
> The criteria for LTS updates are (roughly) the same as for stable updates:
> security problems, and *major* regressions. The main differences, so far,
> are a few more things on the EoL list (mostly because of lack of support
> from upstreams due to advancing age), a restricted set of build
> architectures, and no hardware support updates in the kernel.
But updates for the standard security support are complemented by
point updates and some packages which are updated through stable-updates
as well.
Since these two don't exist for squeeze-lts, releasing such updates
as the spamassassin rules update seems perfectly fine to me.
Cheers,
Moritz
Reply to: