From 1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Vigier Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:46:12 +0000 Subject: Add zarb MLs html archives --- zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/006165.html | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 77 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/006165.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/006165.html') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/006165.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/006165.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7a92ccfda --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/2011-June/006165.html @@ -0,0 +1,77 @@ + + + + [Mageia-dev] Update of backport, policy proposal + + + + + + + + + +

[Mageia-dev] Update of backport, policy proposal

+ Samuel Verschelde + stormi at laposte.net +
+ Thu Jun 30 16:34:10 CEST 2011 +

+
+ +
+Le jeudi 30 juin 2011 15:59:21, Samuel Verschelde a écrit :
+> Le vendredi 24 juin 2011 02:15:03, Michael Scherer a écrit :
+> > However, this mean that someone will have to check if the bug
+> > is fixed, and the question is "who" ( and I do not have a answer that I
+> > find good enough yet ). This could even be more tricky if we consider
+> > that this can be a version upgrade, and a security fix. Even if we trust
+> > the upstream to fix the security issue, we still want to have it
+> > working.
+> 
+> That's a good question, given that priority will be given to stable updates
+> testing rather than backports. With a big security team I would say "the
+> security team", but for now I would trust the upstream here.
+
+Or rather, "the packager who backported the software, with the help of the 
+security team and/or QA team if needed".
+
+Samuel
+
+
+ + + + + +
+

+ +
+More information about the Mageia-dev +mailing list
+ -- cgit v1.2.1