Hello Thierry and Team,
Thanks for taking a little more time to explain. Nonetheless, perhaps
the most important point is still missing from your answer. Please see
below.
Le dimanche 18 janvier 2009 à 17:28 +, Thierry Carrez a écrit :
> > It makes it look like Ubuntu LTS is not even strivin
> It makes it look like Ubuntu LTS is not even striving for
> production-ready status and that this claim as well as that of "Long
> Term" is but a slogan.
You seem to imply that quality and production-ready standards imply
providing updates that add functionality to an already released product.
T
Hello Mathias and Team,
After carefully reading the page you mention, I still fail to
understand why dnsmasq 2.46 should not make its way to Hardy LTS at all.
Since :
- It IS also a security upgrade (should be raised above hardy's
current version according to upstream's site).
- No regre
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 09:45:38PM -, dr.moe wrote:
> _Yet_, can you tell me if v2.46 stands a chance of making it to the
> regular LTS repos ?
>
> So please let me know if inclusion in the main Hardy repos could be
> considered at all (there may be something I missed here...)
>
I don't thin
Hi Thierry,
Thanks for forwarding. Looking forward to the backporters' response.
_Yet_, can you tell me if v2.46 stands a chance of making it to the
regular LTS repos ?
I must stress again that this would be an important improvement for LTS.
To summarize:
- if any dnsmasq user wants / need
Redirecting to hardy-backports... Please see
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports for more information
on the backport process.
** Also affects: hardy-backports
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Changed in: dnsmasq (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
Please updat
