On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:18:20PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
Ok, let's say wanna-build is ok.
I'm not really willing to presume that it is; my preceding question was
intended to establish *whether* it was. Besides the fact that blogging
about this stuff (apparently *instead* of talking to the
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:25:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
According to wanna-build, spamassassin is in state building since 30 Jun.
That could point to a buildd problem. Does the security team sign security
autobuilds directly, or do they still have to be signed and uploaded by the
Michael Stone wrote:
[3] What is the proper contact procedure? debian-admin seems to be a
black hole at the moment--who should [EMAIL PROTECTED] contact
about buildd problems if not d-a?
d-a is wrong, James and Ryan are the people to contact. They are on
d-a as well, though.
[4] I'm sure
* Steve Langasek:
Of course security support is essential for released architectures,
I don't think this is the case. Apparently, we have successfully
without security support, therefore it cannot be essential.
It's desirable, sure, but essential? Certainly not.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 03:02:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 11:49:15PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steve Langasek:
Of course security support is essential for released architectures,
I don't think this is the case. Apparently, we have successfully
On 2005-07-06 Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 03:02:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Can we please stop playing this little game of implying that the people
involved think it's somehow acceptable to not have security support for
stable?
If that's the case, why do the people
6 matches
Mail list logo
