Control: tag -1 - moreinfo
Hi,
Yann Leboulanger wrote (12 Dec 2012 16:53:48 GMT) :
> On 12/12/2012 03:41 PM, intrigeri wrote:
>> Which means we can now get back to why this update of an embedded
>> library should be unblocked. Why is this update needed? Is the version
>> embedded in testing / in unstable (based on) the same as the one
>> packaged in python-gnupg?
> this version of Gajim doesn't only fix this embedded library
> But the version embedded fixes some unhandeled errors, as I told you in the
> previous
> mail. Full diff against python-gnupg-0.3.0 attached
Thanks for the additional information, I think we now have everything
needed to make a well-informed decision!
I'm absolutely not sure what is the best thing to do now:
1. unblock the embedded python-gnupg copy to the "current copy of
Wheezy's python-gnupg + small change that supposedly improves
things": take the risk to see a regression in gajim due to changes
brought by the library update;
2. revert the embedded python-gnupg copy update: take the risk to
make it harder to support serious bugs or security issues that may
be found in python-gnupg in the future.
I'm slightly lending towards #1, but not too satisfied with it,
so I'll let the Release Team make their own opinion on this matter
(not that I could do differently, anyway :)
Note that, even if this unblock is granted, gajim remains RC-buggy in
Wheezy and unstable due to the #693048 security issue.
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/85fw2ryxnw....@boum.org
