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 execution. > > 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