On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 14:33 +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote: > Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> I failed to fetch a human-readable patch info for psi in testing from > >> patch-tracking.debian.net, for example. > > > > Okay, take another example then: > > http://patch-tracking.debian.net/package/ffmpeg-debian > Well, how can users go this site? Is it described in debian policy, > devreference, some user docs?
It could be linked from the PTS maybe - i.e. package specific - and then mentioned in the Debian Developer Reference or linked from http://www.uk.debian.org/devel/ under Miscellaneous. In most cases, upstream teams should be able to get the majority of the data needed from the PTS using http://packages.qa.debian.org/$package and then the BTS. > (suppose) I'm a system administrator. I have received new production > mail server. My only choice is a stable well-maintained distribution. > Last release for RedHat contains exim 1.5.19, and Debian version is > 1.5.18. I know about recently found security bug in 1.5.18. What > distribution I will choose without official acknowledge that Debian's > source for 1.5.18 already have a backported fix for bug? > Well, for security bugs Debian have DSAs. But for other non-security > fixes and improvements came to stable release? BTS and online changelogs linked from the PTS ? -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
