No worries, I've been under heavier flack than this. I prioritised the 1.24.11 release this week and ran into a snag with my MTU/provider to use reportbug. I'll have a look and if I can not figure it out, I'll just copy the generated report in gmail.
I informed Sebastian of the slight delay, I'm still on it. On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 at 11:48, Salvatore Bonaccorso <car...@debian.org> wrote: > > Hi Marc, > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 07:26:31PM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > On Tue, 2025-01-07 at 19:47 +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > > So this mail serves as proposal for doing so in one of the next point > > > releases (the next one is too late). We (with my security team hat > > > on) would strongly support taht we se switch to those following the > > > 1.22.y branch for the point releases and for upcoming Gstreamer > > > related security fixes. > > [...] > > > Adam does that gives you enough background information on this > > > request? It was not meant as: hey the security team say we can > > > rebase, and "bypass" the repsonability of the release team. > > > > > > Let know please if you need any further information from Marc or > > > Sebastian on specific 1.22.y questions. > > > > Yes, thanks, and apologies for the knee-jerk reaction to Marc's mail. > > > > In principle the idea sounds good, but particularly to begin with we'd > > need to see specifics of the updates. The way that works best for us > > for doing that is p-u bugs, as that's the standard workflow we use for > > updates via p-u. > > I hope you got not 'scarried away' :). Since this is involving new > upstream version inmports/rebases it might be worth of pointing out > that you could filter out the debdiff changes with focusing on the > impact for Debian, so including debian/ changes but filtering e.g. out > autocreated stuff from source. > > Does this helps? > > Regards, > Salvatore -- g. Marc GPG: 827C FD74 BA46 8152 A041 F3A0 7A6A 4F17 5995 A65B
