On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 05:05:48PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 02:44:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 11:21:35AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>>>> Stable release team, please react accordingly; you may for example >>>> do a binary sourceless NMU for the architectures that have >>>> -8sarge3 the security update so that they all have -8sarge3 the >>>> maintainer update. >>> I have now heard about what the security problem addressed in >>> -8sarge3 the security update is. It is believed not to be >>> exploitable. I thus now officially request a binary NMU to replace >>> -8sarge3 the security update by -8sarge3 the maintainer update on >>> the arches that have -8sarge3 the security update. >> And which archs are those? > I sent that mail before reading the mail from Martin Zobel-Helas > authorising a -8sarge4 without any changes to force a rebuild (because > that mail was not CCed to me personally). I'm now pursuing that route, > and I'm taking back my binary NMU request. I have nevertheless checked it out, and only i386 has -8sarge3 the security update, all others have -8sarge3 the maintainer update. Depending on the evolution of the fate of -8sarge4, you may want to do a binary NMU after all or not. Best Regards, -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
