On 2018-06-24 15:02:26, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hi Antoine and others
>
> Thank you for this. I modified also the cache location later in the file so
> you do not have to wget it separately.
>
> My question is how we should handle this?
>
> Should we add all "unfixed in jessie but fixed in wheezy" p
On 2018-06-08 02:55:14, Brian May wrote:
> Chris Lamb writes:
>> Other work that can be done in the meantime include improving our
>> triage scripts -- I still have a half-draft of the "renamed packages"
>> script, for example.
>>
>> IIRC I believe the subject to search for is "Improvement needed
Hi Brian,
> Ok, if I understand this, the following concerns need addressing still:
Thank you for looking into this. So, I think I still need to reload
all of the state into my own brain before I can make a proper reply
but my immediate thoughts are that IIRC most of the things you bring
up were
Chris Lamb writes:
> Other work that can be done in the meantime include improving our
> triage scripts -- I still have a half-draft of the "renamed packages"
> script, for example.
>
> IIRC I believe the subject to search for is "Improvement needed to our
> triaging scripts".
Ok, if I understand
Chris Lamb writes:
> Other work that can be done in the meantime include improving our
> triage scripts -- I still have a half-draft of the "renamed packages"
> script, for example.
>
> IIRC I believe the subject to search for is "Improvement needed to our
> triaging scripts".
Is there a list of
Hi Antoine,
> >> I'm not sure how that avoids duplicate work. Just writing to the BTS
> >> does not make it very explicit that we're working on the package, unless
> >> we explicitly say so ("hi, i'm working on this")
> >
> > I think you missed the bit where I wrote "Quasi 'claim' them by
> > writ
On 2018-06-07 16:38:21, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hi Antoine,
>
>> I'm not sure how that avoids duplicate work. Just writing to the BTS
>> does not make it very explicit that we're working on the package, unles
>> we explicitely say so ("hi, i'm working on this")
>
> I think you missed the bit where I w
Hi Antoine,
> I'm not sure how that avoids duplicate work. Just writing to the BTS
> does not make it very explicit that we're working on the package, unles
> we explicitely say so ("hi, i'm working on this")
I think you missed the bit where I wrote "Quasi 'claim' them by
writing to the aforemen
On 2018-06-07 15:42:17, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hi Antoine et al.,
>
>> After staring at that thing and trying to deal with a few of those, I am
>> a little unsure how to actually coordinate this work for now.
>
> I agree that that foo-needed.txt files are a little confusing right
> now. :)
>
> To ensu
Hi,
Am 07.06.2018 um 20:58 schrieb Antoine Beaupré:
[...]
> * graphicsmagick (~50+ CVEs): apo will handle this with his LTS hat on
>if it can't be done before the transition
[...]
I have already sent an update to the security team but it is still
pending review and ACK. As you said I intend
Hi Antoine et al.,
> After staring at that thing and trying to deal with a few of those, I am
> a little unsure how to actually coordinate this work for now.
I agree that that foo-needed.txt files are a little confusing right
now. :)
To ensure no duplicated work in the next week (or at least to
On 2018-06-06 11:05:28, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> Here is the current output:
After staring at that thing and trying to deal with a few of those, I am
a little unsure how to actually coordinate this work for now. All this
will be resolved within a week or two when jessie transitions over to
the LTS
Hi,
So on june 1st, a few changes were made to the security tracker that
made it harder to figure out which packages can be forward-ported from
Jessie, breaking the `lts-needs-forward-port.py` script. I have figured
out how to reverse this locally, so if people want to work on that,
here's how to
13 matches
Mail list logo
