Hello, On Tue 10 Dec 2024 at 09:05pm -03, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote:
> Why not, but... xen security support in bullseye last year (exactly on > 2023-09-30, a little more than two years after the bullseye release): > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1053246, and it was > similar for buster. > Of course, part of the goal of my initial bug report was to improve the > xen security support for trixie in that sense. The Xen packaging team > has stated in #1053246 that they were not in a position to continue > supporting xen after the upstream EOL. (And one of the next steps is to > look again for external help). My point is that the lts-team's > package.yml is probably not the best place to document the xen team' > needs, because xen is out of our current tooling radar. > > Adding it there doesn't harm, but I wonder if that is the best place if > the goal is to monitor packages where the LTS team could help on > unstable/testing. Further discussion can be done at the "Explore ways to > figure out which packages in unstable could use help" issue: > https://salsa.debian.org/lts-team/lts-extra-tasks/-/issues/71. I'll drop a note there, thanks. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
