On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 02:12:06PM +0800, Bret Busby wrote: > On 02/02/2015, Matt Palmer <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 09:49:15AM -0800, Noah Meyerhans wrote: > >> Let me know if I should go ahead with this upload, or if anything else > >> is needed. > > > > You should not go ahead with this upload. > > > >> diff -Nru spamassassin-3.3.1/debian/changelog > >> spamassassin-3.3.1/debian/changelog > >> --- spamassassin-3.3.1/debian/changelog 2013-03-12 08:06:16.000000000 > >> -0700 > >> +++ spamassassin-3.3.1/debian/changelog 2015-01-31 22:51:43.000000000 > >> -0800 > >> @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@ > >> +spamassassin (3.3.1-1.2) squeeze-lts; urgency=medium > >> + > >> + * Export perl_version to rules. (Closes: 771408) > > > > Based on my reading of that bug report, it is not an appropriate bug to be > > addressed in a security update. > > So, is the "LTS" only for security updates, and, not for fixing > software problems?
The criteria for LTS updates are (roughly) the same as for stable updates: security problems, and *major* regressions. The main differences, so far, are a few more things on the EoL list (mostly because of lack of support from upstreams due to advancing age), a restricted set of build architectures, and no hardware support updates in the kernel. In the particular case at issue, I misspoke by saying "security update", however the substantive portion of my statement stands: exporting perl_version to the rules parser is not, IMO, an appropriate change for an LTS upload. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
