On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 20:40 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 11:07 -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 03:22:14PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that backporting gcc-4.9 and building the kernel with it (for
> > > x86) is lower risk than
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 12:05 AM, Guido Günther wrote:
> We will have to do the work anyway once oldstable becomes LTS, same
> holds for stable.
Indeed. IIRC the security team has the same approach for unstable.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Hi Holger,
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 02:42:47PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
[..snip..]
> > So, for my own packages: You are free to LTS upload them anytime you
> > want to, but ONLY if you are also willing to check that the things get
> > fixed in our main supported releases, too.
>
> While I total
Hey,
* Holger Levsen [2018-03-08 15:42:47 CET]:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 03:11:25PM +0100, Rhonda D'Vine wrote:
> > I've got a response by Ingo telling me that the LTS team is
> > underfunded. For the sake of that, wouldn't it be wise to apply similar
> > judgment as the security team towar
Hi Rhonda,
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 03:11:25PM +0100, Rhonda D'Vine wrote:
> Thanks. Are there any plans to work on the oldstable and stable update
> too, or is the LTS approach really just to prioritize oldoldstable
> higher than stable or oldstable?
I think this is an unfair characterisation.
