On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 12:38:20PM -0600, dann frazier wrote: > On Sat, 2005-05-14 at 11:33 +0900, Horms wrote: > > I am not planing to include the CAN-2005-0449 fix in the security or r1 > > update as I undersdand that ABI changes are highly problematic. I am > > willing to be convinced otherwise.
> Oh, do ABI changes in packages on security.debian.org break d-i as well? > I figured it would continue pulling udebs from r0, giving us until r1 to > spin d-i. Is there a problem I'm not seeing? I don't know of any reason why they would break d-i; and I also don't think that putting off all ABI-breaking security fixes until etch is a very good answer anyway. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
