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

Bug#680103: marked as done (www.debian.org: "Debian testing security team" apparently inactive)

Your message dated Sat, 7 Jun 2014 00:02:57 +0200
with message-id <20140606220257.GA17572@eldamar.local>
and subject line Re: Bug#680103: www.debian.org: "Debian testing security team" apparently inactive
has caused the Debian Bug report #680103,
regarding www.debian.org: "Debian testing security team" apparently inactive
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
680103: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=680103
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: www.debian.org
Severity: important

Hi!

http://www.debian.org/security/faq.en.html#testing reads:

"The Debian testing security team handles issues for testing. They will
make sure that the fixed packages enter testing in the usual way by
migration from unstable (with reduced quarantine time), or, if that still
takes too long, make them available via the the normal
http://security.debian.org infrastructure."

I'm not entirely sure (hence the CC to the team), but it seems to me, that
the testing security team is kind of inactive. Judging from the archives of
their mailing lists at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-testing-security-announce/ and
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/secure-testing-team/.

Please correct me, if I got the wrong impression and close the bug, but if
it's the case, this paragraph should be rewritten.


Best regards,
  Alexander

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0.5
  APT prefers stable-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi,

On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 05:34:36PM +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Package: www.debian.org
> Severity: important
> 
> Hi!
> 
> http://www.debian.org/security/faq.en.html#testing reads:
> 
> "The Debian testing security team handles issues for testing. They will
> make sure that the fixed packages enter testing in the usual way by
> migration from unstable (with reduced quarantine time), or, if that still
> takes too long, make them available via the the normal
> http://security.debian.org infrastructure."
> 
> I'm not entirely sure (hence the CC to the team), but it seems to me, that
> the testing security team is kind of inactive. Judging from the archives of
> their mailing lists at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-testing-security-announce/ and
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/secure-testing-team/.
> 
> Please correct me, if I got the wrong impression and close the bug, but if
> it's the case, this paragraph should be rewritten.

This all is correct. The mentioned paragraph was also rewritten some
time ago and now reads as:

Q: How is security handled for testing?

A: Security for testing benefits from the security efforts of the entire
project for unstable. However, there is a minimum two-day migration delay, and
sometimes security fixes can be held up by transitions. The Security Team helps
to move along those transitions holding back important security uploads, but
this is not always possible and delays may occur. Especially in the months
after a new stable release, when many new versions are uploaded to unstable,
security fixes for testing may lag behind. If you want to have a secure (and
stable) server you are strongly encouraged to stay with stable.

So I think this bug can be closed.

Regards,
Salvatore

--- End Message ---
Reply to: