| 1 |
On 07/12/2017 12:25 AM, James Le Cuirot wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:15:51 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On 07/11/2017 04:13 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> On 07/11/2017 03:47 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>> The main risk of breakage of a package moving from testing to |
| 8 |
>>>> stable is always at build time anyway. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> citation needed |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> Anecdotal evidence against, currently gnupg 2.1.21 scdaemon bug will |
| 14 |
>> happily sign a third party public keyblock's UID using signature |
| 15 |
>> subkey on smartcard, which results in useless signature that doesn't |
| 16 |
>> have any effect, but the application builds fine. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> This means gnupg 2.1.21 is not a candidate for stabilization, but it |
| 19 |
>> certainly builds fine. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> This is a good opportunity to remind ourselves what stable means. Are |
| 22 |
> we referring exclusively to our packaging or are upstream issues taken |
| 23 |
> into account too? 30 days seems like a reasonable time for any upstream |
| 24 |
> issues to be reported. Unfortunately security issues mean that new |
| 25 |
> releases sometimes get stabilised immediately. Ideally these releases |
| 26 |
> would carry just the security fixes but that isn't always the case. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I think we should consider both our packaging as well as upstream |
| 30 |
issues, and I agree that for most packages 30 days in ~arch is enough |
| 31 |
time to smoke out upstream issues. |
Archives