El mié, 12-07-2017 a las 09:13 -0500, William Hubbs escribió:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:30:34PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> > On 07/12/2017 01:59 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> > > If it's not a stable candidate then why do you use this as an example
> > > against build testing-based st
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:30:34PM +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 07/12/2017 01:59 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> > If it's not a stable candidate then why do you use this as an example
> > against build testing-based stabilisations? If there are known issues it
> > should never reach the
On 2017-07-12 00:26, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> Question is what's more a problem: Having an outdated stable
>> package because nobody cared about stabilizing a new version (in
>> most cases this will end with a rushed stabilization once a
>> security bug was fixed in the package) or move a p
On 07/12/2017 01:59 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> If it's not a stable candidate then why do you use this as an example
> against build testing-based stabilisations? If there are known issues it
> should never reach the arch teams in the first place.
This might be the crux of things, as long as au
On 07/12/2017 07:26 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:> That presumes that
the maintainer is the one calling for the
> stabilization, and it is not an automated procedure simply due to 30
> days in ~arch. In this particular case, look for the number of bug
> reports filed in Gentoo for the issue.
Al
On 12/07/17 03:16, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:47:32PM +1000, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>> On 07/11/2017 11:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Michael Palimaka
>>> wrote:
On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> Even if such
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 12.07.2017 kell 00:13, kirjutas Thomas
Deutschmann:
> Let's try Debian's testing
> approach and move packages to ARCH in time and don't wait for some
> magical appearing bug reports because someone really tested a package
> in
> ~ARCH. Severe problems will be reported anyways.
On 07/12/2017 12:13 AM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> Question is what's more a problem: Having an outdated stable package
> because nobody cared about stabilizing a new version (in most cases this
> will end with a rushed stabilization once a security bug was fixed in
> the package) or move a packag
>>> Anecdotal evidence against, currently gnupg 2.1.21 scdaemon bug will
>>> happily sign a third party public keyblock's UID using signature subkey
>>> on smartcard, which results in useless signature that doesn't have any
>>> effect, but the application builds fine.
>>>
>>> This means gnupg 2.1.2
On 07/11/2017 04:21 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 07/12/2017 12:15 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>> On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to
stable is always
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:47:32PM +1000, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 11:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Michael Palimaka
> > wrote:
> >> On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Even if such stabilization is allowed, there are unansw
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Michael Palimaka
wrote:
> On 07/12/2017 12:25 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:15:51 +0200
>> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> T
On 07/12/2017 12:25 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:15:51 +0200
> Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
>> On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>> On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to
>>>
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:15:51 +0200
Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> > On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> >> The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to
> >> stable is always at build time anyway.
> >
> > ci
On 07/12/2017 12:15 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>>> The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to
>>> stable is always at build time anyway.
>>
>> citation needed
>>
>
> A
On 07/12/2017 12:13 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>> The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to
>> stable is always at build time anyway.
>
> citation needed
>
Based on my experience doing package testing in stabilisation wo
On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>> The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to
>> stable is always at build time anyway.
>
> citation needed
>
Anecdotal evidence against, currently gnupg 2.1.21 scdaemon bug
On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to
> stable is always at build time anyway.
citation needed
--
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B6
On 07/11/2017 11:06 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Michael Palimaka
> wrote:
>> On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>>
>>> Even if such stabilization is allowed, there are unanswered
>>> questions here:
>>> - is following seciton 4.1 from wg recommendation
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>
>> Even if such stabilization is allowed, there are unanswered
>> questions here:
>> - is following seciton 4.1 from wg recommendations is sufficient?
>> - should developer test each stabi
On 07/11/2017 09:29 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:17:34 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>> On 07/10/2017 10:02 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Andrew Savchenko
>>> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:49:40 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote:
>
21 matches
Mail list logo
