Hi On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 07:42:16PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: > Am Dienstag, dem 12.07.2022 um 19:24 +0200 schrieb Salvatore Bonaccorso: > > Hey, > > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 06:12:04PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: > > > > > > > > I assume adding no-dsa packages to dla-needed.txt is OK if they can be > > > included > > > in the next Buster point release? > > > > Do you mean dla-needed.txt really here? In any case If someone wants > > to propose an update wich do not require a DSA and can be fixed in ap > > oint release, there is no speicial coordination needed with the > > security-team (thouch a CC would be appreciated in any case) and > > simply the procedure for updtaing packages in stable and olstable can > > be followed and propose the update to the Stable Release Managers. > > > > But I assume you really meant here dla-needed as part of LTS > > contributor's workflow to to mark interest in updating something in > > buster? > > Yes, I meant dla-needed.txt. I just wanted to confirm that we can use dla- > needed.txt for internal purposes and to avoid double-work, for point updates > only currently. Thanks for your clarifications!
Ack understood. While I cannot co-decide on that dla-needed use, it seems a valid use to me during this time between takeover to mark work on those updates, maybe just make it clear in a note that it's meant as placeholder to work on point release updates for the respective package. Regards, Salvatore
