On Monday 14 March 2005 17:39, Frank Küster wrote:
David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
On Monday 14 March 2005 16:27, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Not when the alternate choice is to not have Debian support $ARCH at
all.
Please cite where this was proposed. I read the original Nybbles
David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:39, Frank Küster wrote:
No testing, no release, no security support. For me, that is so close
to not support at all that I hardly see the difference.
No testing and release support by the current RMs and no security support
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:57:05PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Reasonable security support requires some degree of cooperation with the
current security team. Without that, vulnerabilities notifications won't
be available.
Why can't porters join the security team? Then everyone benefits.
-
On Monday 14 March 2005 19:18, David Nusinow wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:57:05PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Reasonable security support requires some degree of cooperation with the
current security team. Without that, vulnerabilities notifications won't
be available.
Why can't
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:18:54 -0500, David Nusinow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:57:05PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Reasonable security support requires some degree of cooperation with the
current security team. Without that, vulnerabilities notifications won't
be
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:54:34 +0100, David Schmitt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:39, Frank Küster wrote:
No testing, no release, no security support. For me, that is so close
to not support at all that I hardly see the difference.
No testing and release support by the
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:57:05PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Reasonable security support requires some degree of cooperation with the
current security team. Without that, vulnerabilities notifications won't
be available.
Why can't porters join the
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:26:58PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:18:54 -0500, David Nusinow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:57:05PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Reasonable security support requires some degree of cooperation with the
current security
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:48:53 +1100, Matthew Palmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've seen no hesitation inducting new AMs, and I got solicited to be part of
the security team a couple of years ago which suggests that they're not
particularly picky about who they let in grin.
A couple of years ago, we
9 matches
Mail list logo
