1 |
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:15:51 +0200 |
2 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
5 |
> > On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: |
6 |
> >> The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to |
7 |
> >> stable is always at build time anyway. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > citation needed |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Anecdotal evidence against, currently gnupg 2.1.21 scdaemon bug will |
13 |
> happily sign a third party public keyblock's UID using signature |
14 |
> subkey on smartcard, which results in useless signature that doesn't |
15 |
> have any effect, but the application builds fine. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> This means gnupg 2.1.21 is not a candidate for stabilization, but it |
18 |
> certainly builds fine. |
19 |
|
20 |
This is a good opportunity to remind ourselves what stable means. Are |
21 |
we referring exclusively to our packaging or are upstream issues taken |
22 |
into account too? 30 days seems like a reasonable time for any upstream |
23 |
issues to be reported. Unfortunately security issues mean that new |
24 |
releases sometimes get stabilised immediately. Ideally these releases |
25 |
would carry just the security fixes but that isn't always the case. |
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
James Le Cuirot (chewi) |
29 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |