On Sat, 2013-07-20 at 20:26 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: important
Nope. Bugs in packages may have all kinds of severities, requests to update packages in stable are "normal" at best. (It would also be helpful if you used reportbug or otherwise normalised the usertags and titles when making such requests.) For the record, I had to dig the mail to which I'm replying out of a BTS mbox; it never reached the debian-release list, presumably due to the size of the diff. > We've found that versions of reSIProcate < 1.8.11-4 are not reliable on > non-Intel platforms. Does anyone actually use the package on such architectures? > In particular, essential code such as the MD5 implementation was not > being compiled the right way for big endian systems. The code may > appear to compile and run but as soon as a user tries to engage in a > DIGEST authentication they will find that it fails to operate correctly. [...] > A long list of other bug fixes is also included, several of them > eliminate bugs that can cause a crash > > The cumulative effect of all bug fixes on the 1.8.x release branch > brings a significant improvement in quality and convenience for end users. The _filtered_ diffstat is "189 files changed, 5819 insertions(+), 2235 deletions(-)" and adds two new packages. We'd need a lot of convincing that the latter is worth doing, rather than just proving updates via backports (fwiw, I'm only aware of one occasion where a new package was introduced to a release once it was stable, and that was openssh-blacklist via security.d.o, which is a somewhat different situation). Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
