Hi Steve, On Tuesday 05 April 2005 16:54, Steve Langasek wrote: > To reiterate our discussion on IRC, I don't think this addresses my > concerns, which are that: > > - Nothing in the package (binary or source) uniquely identifies the > kernel-source patchlevel used (including the added ABI name, since ABI name > != patchlevel)
I've changed the build dependencies to kernel-tree-2.6.8-15 and kernel-tree-2.4.27-8 now. > - Nothing in the source or binary package names matches the > kernel.*2\.(4\.27|6\.8) regexp that I've been using so far to identify the > kernel packages requiring attention > > I have no knowledge of how important the latter is to the security team; As it seems, it's not really important at least to Joey. > they may not be bothered by it as long as they're aware that this package > exists which doesn't follow the usual naming convention. (which I presume > that after this thread, at least one member of the security team *is* aware > of this.) Hmmm... the only mail address for stable security support on http://www.debian.org/intro/organization is [EMAIL PROTECTED] - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> didnt seem appropriate to me. Would that have been a better address ? regards, Holger
pgptalNj4zASw.pgp
Description: PGP signature