Hi Adam!
>You're answering a different question, namely "why". I was asking for >some information / pointers as to how you know they're being confused. >Presumably there are several mailing list posts, IRC conversations, etc. I didn't say the original statement, so I leave nord-stream answering here :) >It's only in proposed-updates because it was in stable-security. This is >not a change that was made via p-u. now I see everything differently! >You've just agreed with me. :-) The log for #815006 includes "I see esr>is in >wheezy-updates and jessie-updates, not backports." which your >paste has clearly demonstrated is incorrect. that was a typo, I didn't pay too much attention to that statement while writing it. >(It's in security.d.o:wheezy/updates, security.d.o:jessie/updates and as >a side-effect of the latter also in jessie-proposed-updates. It's in >neither of wheezy-updates or jessie-updates.) yep, it is clear now, thanks >I don't see how it can possibly be off-topic. You're discussing a >package that's intended to allow users to revert changes made in a >package that _was released via the security archive_. it is off-topic, until you say something like "hey, the change was made by security, and having in p-u is just a side effect, please close this bug and coordinate with security team" it is just off-topic because security isn't in cc and involved (yet). >Sure. As I said, I'm not disagreeing with the concept, just whether p-u >is the right means of delivering it. (and, no, "the change is in p-u" >isn't an argument, as above - the change is in security, it just happens >to be copied to p-u.) now that this is clear and thanks a lot for that, would you like to close this one and ask -security team? thanks for the *helpful* answer, Gianfranco
