Hey Steve, Steve Beattie [2016-05-25 0:22 -0700]: > Now that they've been in proposed for a while, I'd like to argue that > the updates should be moved to the security and updates pockets. I've > tested each of the versions as I would for a normal security update, > as well as doing specific testing for the pt_chown issue, looking > for breakage. I don't see any new bug reports or error reports for > the specific versions in proposed. > > However, the ADT tests triggered by glibc moving into proposed show a > number of failures. I've examined these, and I don't believe any of the > failures are regressions introduced by the glibc packages. What follows > is my analysis for each listed "regression".
I agree. I already asked about that in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/1546457/comments/5 > Given all of the above, I'd like to ask that the glibc/eglibc pacckages > in proposed be moved to their respective security and updates pockets. That seems fine to me. Operationally, should "we" (archive admins) just copy them to -security and you release an USN afterwards, or do we need to coordinate the timing to have the USN available at the same time? Martin -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- Ubuntu-release mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
