Hi! On 2004-06-13 22:46 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 08:33:15PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > Using s-p-u for that would nullify the security update. Please don't do > > that. Okay, I won't do this for the moment. But of course I would incorporate the changes of the security update to 7.2.4. > Never the less, I think the original question (whether 7.2.4 should be > accepted for woody) is a good one. If I understood Martin Pitt's > explanation correctly, the postgresql upstream doesn't lightly perform > third-level updates such as the one from 7.2.1 to 7.2.4. According to the developers they only fix severe bugs. The patches "shall make 7.2 do what it is supposed to do". > I don't know what the actual policy they apply regarding what kinds of > bugfixes can go in such an update looks like; however, if it is (more or > less) the same as the one Debian applies to stable updates (i.e., only > patches to fix security holes, bugs that make the thing useless or > mostly so, bugs that might cause data loss/corruption, or bugs that > might break unrelated packages and/or the whole system) AFAIUI they primarily deal with data corruption, but maybe Peter (one of PostgreSQL's upstreams and Debian applicant) can clarify some things here. > I don't see why it shouldn't be accepted. 7.2.1 is not supported any more by upstream, they point people to 7.2.4 where things are fixed. So it certainly beneficial to our users to upgrade to this. OTOH I don't know how intrusive the patches from 7.2.1 to 7.2.4 were, i. e. how high the risk of breaking other things is. Thanks, Martin -- Martin Pitt Debian GNU/Linux Developer martin@piware.de mpitt@debian.org http://www.piware.de http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature