And I now see two reasons for its migration to happen quickly:
I wonder if we should wait for 9.1 to migrate before uploading
9.2-BETA1 to unstable. If there's trouble ahead for 9.2, waiting a
long time can miss the opportunity for fixes to make it to
9.2-RELEASE.
I would still prefer 9.1 to migrate before 9.2 goes into unstable,
therefore we may want to hurry.
Well, currently 9.1 is RC-buggy due to security hole, [...]
And 9.0 in testing has the same security issue, which we have a duty to
fix (by allowing a fixed package to migrate).
So I'd prefer to see one more upload of 9.1 to unstable, with the
nfsserver security bugfix, with urgency=medium or high. And it should
be allowed to migrate unless someone finds a serious bug during those
2-5 days.
I also prefer upload of security fixed 9.1 to unstable, with urgency=high.
We should wait with 9.2 upload into unstable also a few days after
migration of kernel 9.1 into testing. It leave us a window for catching
more 9.1 kernel bugs (spotted by users of testing) and allow fixing
them via upload into unstable.
Ideally whole set [1] of 9.1 based packages should migrate into testing
before upload of a corresponding 9.2 package into sid.
Especially lag of ufsutils (still 8.2) worries me.
Petr
[1] http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=debian-bsd@lists.debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/alpine.lnx.2.00.1307290730260.21...@contest.felk.cvut.cz
