What are you waiting for ? Get 200% Return On Investment ( ROI ) within 14 -31
days GUARANTEED. Bitcoin is on the rise, Take advantage NOW ! Kindly reach out
for more information.
Global BTC Base
Promotion Team
Quoting Paul Gevers (2021-01-30 19:49:31)
> On 30-01-2021 11:50, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > If the release team consider bitcoin unacceptable for Debian stable,
> > then please elaborate why.
>
> We consider it unacceptable for Debian bullseye because the security
> team doesn't want to support
Hi Jonas,
On 30-01-2021 11:50, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> If the release team consider bitcoin unacceptable for Debian stable,
> then please elaborate why.
We consider it unacceptable for Debian bullseye because the security
team doesn't want to support it.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature
Description:
The bitcoin package was removed from testing some hours ago -
https://tracker.debian.org/news/1225530/bitcoin-removed-from-testing/
references bug#718272 but that bug is closed.
If the removal accidental (e.g. cause by bug closure flip-flop, then
please consider correcting that by fast
close 718272
thanks
Quoting Moritz Mühlenhoff (2021-01-27 20:03:40)
> reopen 718272
> thx
>
> Reopening. The reasons are listed in the bug log and were given by
> the upstream developers. If you want to provide it to bullseye
> stable users, get it into fasttrack.debian.net.
Thanks for sharing y
reopen 718272
thx
Reopening. The reasons are listed in the bug log and were given by
the upstream developers. If you want to provide it to bullseye
stable users, get it into fasttrack.debian.net.
Cheers,
Moritz
FWIW, I brought this up at our weekly developer meeting, and there was also
another concern about apt upgrades across softforks: It could be problematic
to not deploy a softfork, and problematic to deploy one without the user's
consent.
I think I recall Debian has a way for packages to interact
Quoting Luke Dashjr (2021-01-07 18:26:43)
> We (upstream) already elaborated many years ago, copied here:
>
> http://luke.dashjr.org/tmp/code/20130723-linux-distribution-packaging-and-bitcoin.md.asc
>
> At a minimum, to be safe, Debian would need to:
>
> 1) Either:
> 1a) Build with the bundled L
21 13:51:50 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Debian Bug Tracking System (2020-12-27 19:33:02)
>
> > Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> > > reopen 718272
> >
> > Bug #718272 {Done: Jonas Smedegaard } [src:bitcoin]
> > upstream does not support
Any news after half a year?
Why it's marked "fixed-upstream"?
Hey Luke, Jonas,
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 08:31:33PM +, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> > >> I believe Bitcoin is now stable enough for stable release.
> > > Things have only gotten less stable upstream since 2013...
> > Please provide references supporting that.
0.15 is certainly "stable" in the sense t
On Friday 03 November 2017 1:27:24 PM Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Luke Dashjr (2017-11-03 11:25:23)
>
> > On Friday 03 November 2017 9:10:37 AM you wrote:
> >> I believe Bitcoin is now stable enough for stable release.
> >
> > Things have only gotten less stable upstream since 2013...
>
>
Quoting Luke Dashjr (2017-11-03 11:25:23)
> On Friday 03 November 2017 9:10:37 AM you wrote:
>> I believe Bitcoin is now stable enough for stable release.
>
> Things have only gotten less stable upstream since 2013...
Please provide references supporting that.
> What is the plan for getting secu
On Friday 03 November 2017 9:10:37 AM you wrote:
> I believe Bitcoin is now stable enough for stable release.
Things have only gotten less stable upstream since 2013...
What is the plan for getting security and protocol change updates backported
to Debian stable?
Luke
Scott said:
one more thing: debian is discussion dropping libdb (the db the node,
but not the wallet, uses). That might force our hand as well: either
ship and support upstream's included libdb or drop the node and just
ship the wallet. libdb long-term security maintenance might be
challenging.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 6:53:57 PM Scott Howard wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
>> > Thank you, Chris. I think you articulated the situation well and the
>> > options.
>>
>> one more thing: debian is discussi
On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 6:53:57 PM Scott Howard wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
> > Thank you, Chris. I think you articulated the situation well and the
> > options.
>
> one more thing: debian is discussion dropping libdb (the db the node,
> but not the wallet, u
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
> Thank you, Chris. I think you articulated the situation well and the options.
one more thing: debian is discussion dropping libdb (the db the node,
but not the wallet, uses). That might force our hand as well: either
ship and support upstream
Thank you, Chris. I think you articulated the situation well and the options.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Chris Bainbridge
wrote:
> This is not necessary as the debian-installer already enables
> stable-updates by default.
stable-updates is enabled by default, but not stable-proposed-updat
Luke-Jr wrote:
> I agree with Scott's assessment, although I would note that Debian *does* have
> a suite that addresses the needs of Bitcoin: stable-updates. Mandatory
> protocol rule changes would seem to fall within the "broken by the flow of
> time" category. Thoughts?
I agree.
Scott Howard w
> For example: if we release Debian Jessie with version 0.8 of bitcoin, and a
> security bug is found in that version and fixed upstream, the fix may be based
> on top of version 0.10 and unable to be ported to 0.8.
A Debian package is allowed to bump versions for a security fix. Is
this any diffe
Hi Scott,
For your information I have a case that you might find interesting:
Zabbix did not meet release criteria and was removed from "testing"
just before release of Wheezy. Ever since yours truly was maintaining
it in wheezy-backports.
Why wouldn't we seek backports manager(s)' permission to
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> I agree with Scott's assessment, although I would note that Debian *does* have
> a suite that addresses the needs of Bitcoin: stable-updates. Mandatory
> protocol rule changes would seem to fall within the "broken by the flow of
> time" category.
I agree with Scott's assessment, although I would note that Debian *does* have
a suite that addresses the needs of Bitcoin: stable-updates. Mandatory
protocol rule changes would seem to fall within the "broken by the flow of
time" category. Thoughts?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-di
Below is my opinion, and is open for debate:
Although there are mechanisms for supporting security updates in
stable debian releases, and luke-jr's work of porting fixes is great
and exactly what is needed, updates to network protocols would not
classify as a security update and would only be avai
Package: bitcoin
Severity: normal
The severity of this bug can be changed to allow migration to testing?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Also, note the backport branches have a policy of only including fixes which
have been first merged to the master branch.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Luke-Jr wrote:
> This isn't correct. We do support backported/stable versions in a separate git
> repository:
> https://gitorious.org/bitcoin/bitcoind-stable/
>
> Debian is welcome to choose a branch and I will do what I can to ensure it
> receives long-ter
On Wednesday, September 04, 2013 4:58:58 PM Scott Howard wrote:
> How are those updated? It appears whenever there is a current-version
> micro-release, those commits are backported to the stable branches.
I have a lot of different projects, and tend to cycle through them. Outside of
that routine
This isn't correct. We do support backported/stable versions in a separate git
repository:
https://gitorious.org/bitcoin/bitcoind-stable/
Debian is welcome to choose a branch and I will do what I can to ensure it
receives long-term support. I would recommend using the latest release
(cu
Source: bitcoin
Severity: serious
The bitcoin network requires on strict adherence to consensus between nodes.
Small changes to underlying libraries, even justified security changes,
threaten to break consensus and could possible cause accidental forks.
For example, it is possible for bug fix in
31 matches
Mail list logo
