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