On 2016-05-19 19:22:18, Brian May wrote:
> Antoine Beaupré writes:
>> I wonder if some of that stuff should be automated. I am fairly new with
>> the security process, how often do mistakes like this happen anyways?
>>
>> And how hard would it be to automate this?
>
> I would suggest a move useful
Antoine Beaupré writes:
> I wonder if some of that stuff should be automated. I am fairly new with
> the security process, how often do mistakes like this happen anyways?
>
> And how hard would it be to automate this?
I would suggest a move useful thing to automate would be filling in more
detail
> Inline signing is not mandatory (I use MIME-signing with mutt) but
> there are enough cases where MIME-signing does not work properly
I've also found MIME-signing to be unreliable so I now use inline-signing by
default when posting to debian-lts-announce.
(My tip is to BCC your personal email
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 01:24:01PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>
[Snip lots of excellent feedback]
>
> Good luck!
>
> A.
>
> PS: i had originally garbage-collected my squeeze packages from
> people.debian.org because I forgot about this issue. i have put them
> back on:
>
> https://people.de
On 2016-05-12 15:07:19, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Hi Antoine,
>
> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 05:09:30PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
>> Hello Roberto, welcome on board!
>>
>> Am 08.05.2016 um 05:34 schrieb Roberto C. Sánchez:
>>
>> > I pulled the patch for CVE-2015-4844 from the upstream jdk8u pr
On 2016-05-17 10:54:50, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> I would say just go ahead, and we'll need to do a similar sweep in
> data/CVE/list later as well.
>
> I'll mark this on my TODO and will do so tomorrow if no one else steps
> up.
Just for the record: I was confused. If the DLA is done and processed
On 2016-05-19 02:28:15, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Hi Guido,
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 08:11:37AM +0200, Guido Günther wrote:
>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 03:12:23PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> > On 2016-03-29 16:28:36, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> > > On 2016-03-26 04:33:29, Guido Günther wro
On 2016-05-19 08:16:51, Rhonda D'Vine wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Holger Levsen [2016-05-19 13:45:56 CEST]:
>> appearantly some maintainers don't want to support backports in
>> wheezy-backports anymore, saying wheezy is oldstable now (und
>> unsupported by Debian proper, "just" maintained by the Debia
On Wed, 18 May 2016, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2016-05-18 03:45:57, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 May 2016, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> >> It would be great to have better consistency here.
> >
> > Yes, just like we ensure that we get an Accepted mail before sending the
> > DLA, we must make
Hi,
* Holger Levsen [2016-05-19 13:45:56 CEST]:
> appearantly some maintainers don't want to support backports in
> wheezy-backports anymore, saying wheezy is oldstable now (und
> unsupported by Debian proper, "just" maintained by the Debian LTS team.)
That's fine with me, I'm willing to pi
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:45:56AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Alternativly, the backports maintainers would need to agree to maintain
> those backports for two more years.
which should be rather easy by uploading the jessie version to
wheezy-backports and following up with backporting jessie se
Hi,
appearantly some maintainers don't want to support backports in
wheezy-backports anymore, saying wheezy is oldstable now (und
unsupported by Debian proper, "just" maintained by the Debian LTS team.)
In a way, that's a fair stand, as when they agreed to support the backport
for the life time o
12 matches
Mail list logo
