Re: testing security (was Re: testing and no release schedule
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 04:00:32AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
> > Hi, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >
> >> I always thought
> >> that "best practice" was for maintainers to make new uploads to unstable
> >> when there's a security update, which they do -- but *also* to make
> >> security uploads to testing-proposed-updates. This doesn't seem to
> >> actually be done very often, unfortunately, even by otherwise very
> >> diligent
> >> maintainers. :-P I'm not sure why -- maybe testing-proposed-updates
> >> simply isn't well-known or well-understood? Or maybe it isn't processed
> >> efficiently?
> >
> > If there are no dependency issues, Priority: high (or even "emergency",
> > which doesn't seem to be that well-known either) works just as well.
> Yeah; there often are dependency issues, of course.
And not to forget the build dependency issues.
The testing scripts ignore build dependencies - and how would you do an
upload of a fixed package to testing if the package's build dependencies
can't be fulfilled in testing?
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: