Re: tor into volatile?
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Apr 2010, Philipp Kern wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 10:35:35PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > > So, should and may I upload a newer Tor version to volatile?
> >
> > I don't know if autobuilding works, but yes, in general that would be ok.
> > You'd need to upload it, prod someone to do NEW processing and prepare
> > an announcement for d-v-announce.
>
> Sounds good. I'll prepare a .deb and do the rest once I have a newer
> Tor building on our new mips machine.
Unfortunately I got sidetracked a lot, and this just wasn't as high on
my list as maybe it should have been.
Anyway, uploaded this week, and it's not stuck in NEW. This is
your *prod*.
Would something like is in the changelog work as the announcement?
Changes:
tor (0.2.1.26-1~lennyvolatile1) lenny-volatile; urgency=low
.
* Upload to lenny-volatile.
The 0.2.0.x tree in debian stable (lenny) is end-of-lifed by upstream.
.
These versions still work for now as we have updated the list of
authority keys that come with Tor to keep our packages functional.
However, there are significant benefits to running a more current
version.
.
If servers that currently run our 0.2.0.x package upgrade to a newer
version the network as a whole should become faster. If clients
upgrade they should pick smarter paths through the network.
.
Access to hidden services might be completely broken or at least
unreliable for old clients; Updating to the 0.2.1.x tree restores
that functionality.
Cheers,
weasel
--
| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal
http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System
| `- http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: