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

Re: bullseye-security upload queue open (was: [SECURITY] [DLA 3856-1] python-html-sanitizer security update)



Hi Aurelien,

On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 07:17:08PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2024-08-31 11:29, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote:
> > El 31/08/24 a las 16:43, Adrian Bunk escribió:
> > > On Sat, Aug 31, 2024 at 10:12:19AM -0300, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote:
> > > >...
> > > > It seems the bullseye-security upload queue is finally open (now that
> > > > the point release has been published).
> > > >...
> > > 
> > > Are you talking only about the ftp side, or also about the buildd side?
> > > 
> > > https://buildd.debian.org/ still looks wrong, that's why I'm asking.
> > 
> > I cannot really tell, I am afraid. Adding the FTP team and Buildd Teams
> > to the loop to ask for their help.
> 
> Can please you tell us what is wrong on buildd.d.o? Not knowning the
> issue, it is difficult to fix it.
> 
> Just a few details on the wanna-build / buildd side to avoid the usual
> endless and useless discussions:
> - The buildds are able to handle LTS builds since a bit before the
>   release of Bullseye, as the choice is now to reuse the existing
>   -security suite. Nothing has to be done besides making the suites
>   public on the web interface.
> - The bullseye-security suite was made public on Aug 19.
> - The non-LTS architecture got removed from wanna-build on Aug 31 after
>   the release of the latest Bullseye point release.

I replied to Santiago sending the "upload queue is finally open" email,
this was after the move of wuiet to faster hardware but before you 
removed the non-LTS architectures.

Regarding the buildd side, removing the non-LTS architectures from 
bullseye-security was desirable before doing LTS uploads.

It all got overshadowed by the ftp team making the required changes to 
bullseye-security only after the point release, and them being 
unresponsive in the two weeks before that.

> Regards
> Aurelien

cu
Adrian


Reply to: