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
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
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
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Dmitry Smirnov only...@debian.org wrote:
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
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 l...@dashjr.org 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
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
