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

Re: testing security blockers

Steve Langasek wrote:
> > krb5
> > 	28 days old
> > 	FTBFS on m68k due to gcc ICE, needs followup
> Is this one that we should consider pushing into testing without the m68k
> binaries?

This one had a DSA and one of the three holes allows remote code

> > openmotif
> > 	72 days old
> > 	Non-free package with old buils on several arches that will not
> > 	get rebuilt unless done manually.
> > 	Unfortunatly removing these old builds involves removing
> > 	dependent packages on those arches, unsure if it's time to think
> > 	about doing that yet.
> Perhaps a mail to the affected porter lists and the maintainers of the
> reverse-deps would be in order first.

Yeah, probably.

> So, we're probably going to be sitting here for a while waiting on glibc
> yet, and many of these packages have newer versions on all archs in
> unstable, which makes them candidates for uploads to t-p-u.  Even hppa
> should be fine for t-p-u, though we may have to get things selectively
> reenabled on sarti for that.  Is it time to start doing testing NMUs for
> some of the packages on this list?

There is some confusion here about how t-p-u uploads are expected to
work at this point. Do we need to backport fixes for the version in
testing? Are all the autobuilders functional?

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: