On 4 March 2017 at 14:26, Salvatore Bonaccorso <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Adam, > > On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 11:56:23AM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >> On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 10:55 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: >> > Then it should not be in a stable release, but updated via stretch-updates. >> >> That's self-contradictory. -updates is a subset of proposed-updates, so >> any packages released via it are necessarily in stable. > > Not Moritz here, but maybe we can argue that way: It could be handled > like clamav (and be updated to upstream point updates via > stretch-updates), or possibly suricata should not be at all in a > stable release beeing to fast moving target[*]. >
After some thinking, yes. Upstream point updates via stretch-updates is probably the way to go. Then mirroring in backports what we have in testing (newer non-point releases, assuming a stretch stable status) is also good to have. And back to this bug report, I still believe that updating stretch is interesting. The ask for unblock is still valid, I think :-)
