On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Martino Dell'Ambrogio <ti...@tillo.ch> wrote: > Hello Vincent, > > Thank you for the recommendation. > I was going to propose a wheezy update at first, but I opted for > wheezy-backports exactly because of devref 5.5.1: > > "Extra care should be taken when uploading to stable. Basically, a package > should only be uploaded to stable if one of the following happens: > * a truly critical functionality problem > * the package becomes uninstallable > * a released architecture lacks the package"
I consider devref 5.5.1 to exaggerate a bit when it comes to criteria for stable release updates (and not all stable release updates have strictly followed that criteria). I obviously can't speak on behalf of the release team since I'm not a member, but I invite you to file a wheezy-pu request anyways; the worst that can happen is that it's rejected. Ideally you want to provide a debdiff that's targeted (i.e. it fixes that bug, and nothing else), is as small as possible, and has minimal regression potential; that'll give you the best shot at getting your proposed update approved. > The mentioned bug shows itself in at least some Xeon CPUs as far as I can > tell, but only impacts encrypted BitTorrent transfers. > The library remains perfectly usable for unencrypted tranfers. > > I also informed the current maintainer so that he may decide whether this is > "a truly critical functionality problem". > In my humble opinion it's not. It may be average or important, not critical. Definitely, it's always a good idea to talk to the maintainer/uploaders prior to proposing a stable release update or a backport for a package that they maintain. Regards, Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CACZd_tD-027m-=6_8awx47e7giecwp5oidds5-rhkfd8exk...@mail.gmail.com
