Any news after half a year?
Why it's marked "fixed-upstream"?
Hey Luke, Jonas,
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 08:31:33PM +, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> > >> I believe Bitcoin is now stable enough for stable release.
> > > Things have only gotten less stable upstream since 2013...
> > Please provide references supporting that.
0.15 is certainly "stable" in the sense t
On Friday 03 November 2017 1:27:24 PM Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Luke Dashjr (2017-11-03 11:25:23)
>
> > On Friday 03 November 2017 9:10:37 AM you wrote:
> >> I believe Bitcoin is now stable enough for stable release.
> >
> > Things have only gotten less stable upstream since 2013...
>
>
Quoting Luke Dashjr (2017-11-03 11:25:23)
> On Friday 03 November 2017 9:10:37 AM you wrote:
>> I believe Bitcoin is now stable enough for stable release.
>
> Things have only gotten less stable upstream since 2013...
Please provide references supporting that.
> What is the plan for getting secu
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 6:53:57 PM Scott Howard wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
>> > Thank you, Chris. I think you articulated the situation well and the
>> > options.
>>
>> one more thing: debian is discussi
On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 6:53:57 PM Scott Howard wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
> > Thank you, Chris. I think you articulated the situation well and the
> > options.
>
> one more thing: debian is discussion dropping libdb (the db the node,
> but not the wallet, u
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
> Thank you, Chris. I think you articulated the situation well and the options.
one more thing: debian is discussion dropping libdb (the db the node,
but not the wallet, uses). That might force our hand as well: either
ship and support upstream
Thank you, Chris. I think you articulated the situation well and the options.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Chris Bainbridge
wrote:
> This is not necessary as the debian-installer already enables
> stable-updates by default.
stable-updates is enabled by default, but not stable-proposed-updat
Hi Scott,
For your information I have a case that you might find interesting:
Zabbix did not meet release criteria and was removed from "testing"
just before release of Wheezy. Ever since yours truly was maintaining
it in wheezy-backports.
Why wouldn't we seek backports manager(s)' permission to
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> I agree with Scott's assessment, although I would note that Debian *does* have
> a suite that addresses the needs of Bitcoin: stable-updates. Mandatory
> protocol rule changes would seem to fall within the "broken by the flow of
> time" category.
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> This isn't correct. We do support backported/stable versions in a separate git
> repository:
> https://gitorious.org/bitcoin/bitcoind-stable/
>
> Debian is welcome to choose a branch and I will do what I can to ensure it
> receives long-ter
On Wednesday, September 04, 2013 4:58:58 PM Scott Howard wrote:
> How are those updated? It appears whenever there is a current-version
> micro-release, those commits are backported to the stable branches.
I have a lot of different projects, and tend to cycle through them. Outside of
that routine
12 matches
Mail list logo
