On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 15:49 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2018-12-03 20:40:08, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I don't see this as an acceptable option for LTS. We could maybe add a
> > xen-4.8 package if it was popular in jessie-backports, but that doesn't
> > excuse us from having to
On 2018-12-03 20:40:08, Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
> I don't see this as an acceptable option for LTS. We could maybe add a
> xen-4.8 package if it was popular in jessie-backports, but that doesn't
> excuse us from having to support 4.4.
As I was repeatedly told during my work on Enigmail / Gnu
On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 12:59 +0100, Peter Dreuw wrote:
[...]
> While XSA-275 and XSA280 might be easy to apply the upstream fix,
> XSA-279 does not apply to the current Xen 4.4 state. XSA-279 does only
> affect after implementing the XSA-254 (Meltdown) fixes. From this
> perspective. XSA-279 could b
Hi,
I just ran "./bin/review-update-needed --lts --unclaim 3w --exclude
linux linux-4.9" and no changes were made and then I tried with 2w and
still the same result. Yay!
Just with 1w it would unclaim some packages :) (But I don't think
packages should be unclaimed after a week.)
--
cheers,
