On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 04:09:07PM -0700, LaMont Jones wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:47:27PM +0000, Neil McGovern wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 04:07:13PM -0700, LaMont Jones wrote: > > Both marked as fixed in 1:9.3.4-2 in our tracker, HOWEVER: > > 355 files changed, 42564 insertions(+), 23165 deletions(-) > > which has lots of changes to lots of files. > > > > Is there any chance the security/RC issues can be backported? > > My mistake here - I had been of the belief that bind 9.3.3 had been > promoted to testing already. > > Having said that, I think it would be a good thing to pull 9.3.4-2 into > testing for the following reasons: > > 1. Absolutely no support from upstream for 9.3.2, other than "upgrade to 9.3.4" > As it's bind, which doesn't have the most glowing of security histories, this one is (IMO) valid :) > 2. DNSSEC actually works well in 9.3.4 > Hrm... not an essential inclusion yet IMO. Would be nice etc etc. > 3. Other security fixes in 9.3.3 not yet incorporated in 9.3.2 > Yup, these would need to be backported too. > Pretty please? Well, IANA-RM, but from a security point of view; as the changeset is HUGE my recommendation is: "Unblock, 20 day lead time" Neil -- <jmtd> irssiproxy appears to be crack cut with washing up powder
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature