VOROSKOI Andras wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 03:05:02PM +0200, VMiklos wrote:
>   
>> if there is an official patch, then the stable team can fix the issue
>> in -stable _before_ it's fixed in -current
>>     
>
> Well, i think this before/after thing makes no sense.
>   

This make sense.A patch whatever official or not should go in current
and need be 'tested'
to see is 'really' fixing this issues. Then go in stable.
> The point of the sec support to fix programs in -stable ASAP.
> If you fix something before me in -current, that means less work for me,
> but i can't wait for the m8r every time.
>   

Yeah I can unterstand you but still is 'stupid' to fix something is
stable befor fixed in current without *any* testing and without to know
those
patches are really working.
> I have other things to get done, have to go to school sometimes and so.
> If i got a half an hour i can fix a [SEC] bug, but i can't do so when i
> wait for m8r's OK.
>   

Well we all have other things to do :)
> So waiting for -current makes fixing slower some cases and that's the
> opposite of what we exactly want.
>   

What we what is to 'fix' security bugs in stable ASAP , this does not
means to
rush things.
> I can not guarantee that i'll fix everithing in -current first. That's
> too much work for me. And i don't want to touch other's packages.
>   

This is the point is much stuff for a one man team but if you want to
fix ASAP you really need fix both current and stable.
Let me explain :P With pushing this patch in stable first you 'already
touched that package' and 'the maintainer is *forced*'
to push *the* same patch to current , whatever is right , wrong is
working or whatever not. You cannot push different patches for the same
FSA , no ? ;). Anyway you don't have to recompile the current patches
but add this patch to build() in current , add right sha1sums() , bump rel,
and push. Everything else is done by syncpkgd.I hope you got the point.

> Let me know if you disagree as it's better to discuss these thing in
> time to avoid flame wars.
>
> That's all, LET THE FLAME BEGIN ;)
>   
No flames ;) just my opinion :P



_______________________________________________
Frugalware-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://frugalware.org/mailman/listinfo/frugalware-devel

Reply via email to