Hi again. I just re-read one ofthe instruction emails and realize that we have recently extended the scope. Point taken. Will not remove runc.
/ Ola Den mån 8 apr. 2024 14:51Ola Lundqvist <o...@inguza.com> skrev: > Hi > > Yes I read that. But should we keep it in dla needed when it is to update > a non lts release? > I thought the purpose of dla needed was for lts. > > I understand the need to do forward porting but is dla needed the place > for that? > > / Ola > > Den mån 8 apr. 2024 13:33Sylvain Beucler <b...@beuc.net> skrev: > >> Hi, >> >> Please read the dla-needed.txt entry. >> It says we should sync *bullseye*. >> >> Cheers! >> Sylvain >> >> On 07/04/2024 23:47, Ola Lundqvist wrote: >> > Hi fellow LTS contributors >> > >> > I was about to assign runc to myself but realized that it should not be >> > in dla-needed. >> > There is just one CVE to be fixed and that one is marked as no-dsa with >> > note minor issue. >> > >> > I will therefore do the following. >> > Change the no-dsa to postponed and remove runc from dla-needed. >> > >> > If anyone have any objections, please let me know. >> >
