Hi,
On 11/07/2019 15:20, Jonas Meurer wrote:
>> Many packages are packaged in Git already (probably on Salsa) and have a
>> repo location of their own. With applying GitLab based CI to the
>> workflow, the LTS team would add an extra Git repo, just for the LTS
>> uploads done by the paid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Package: python3.4
Version: 3.4.2-1+deb8u5
CVE ID : CVE-2019-9948
The urllib library in Python ships support for a second, not well known
URL scheme for accessing local files ("local_file://"). This scheme can
be used to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 12:58:03 +0200
Source: python3.4
Binary: python3.4 python3.4-venv libpython3.4-stdlib python3.4-minimal
libpython3.4-minimal libpython3.4 python3.4-examples python3.4-dev
libpython3.4-dev libpython3.4-testsuite
Hello,
Mike Gabriel:
>> In the internal discussions, the following vision for an improved upload
>> workflow arose:
>>
>> 1. Upload packages targeted at LTS suites to some dedicated place for
>> automated testing
>
>> 2. Run automatic tests (piuparts, autopkgtests, lintian?, ...)
>
> Maybe,
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:15:34AM +, Mike Gabriel wrote:
[..snip..]
> Personally, I think that using Salsa for this, adds an extra layer of
> complexity to the uploading workflow, because we have to pump all packages
> that we want to fix in LTS through GitLab.
On the plus side of
Hi Jonas, hi all,
thanks for summarizing the discussion we had on the non-public paid
LTS contributors' "mailing list".
On Di 09 Jul 2019 16:21:47 CEST, Jonas Meurer wrote:
Hello,
Some LTS members recently started discussing options for better
(semi-)automated testing of LTS uploads and
