On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 09:21:44PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> Yes, this is the correct approach in principle, but I don't think
> release candidates should be uploaded to volatile. But I can't speak
> for debian-volatile, really.
Never noticed the rc in the version number there. I suppose
* Tom Furie:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:37:35PM +0100, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
>
>> I'm right now in the process of preparing an upload of clamav 0.95rc1; as
>> such,
>> the question is: where to upload to? unstable? volatile? Any of the other
>> queues?
>
> Maybe I'm not quite clear on the c
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:37:35PM +0100, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> I'm right now in the process of preparing an upload of clamav 0.95rc1; as
> such,
> the question is: where to upload to? unstable? volatile? Any of the other
> queues?
Maybe I'm not quite clear on the concept of volatile, but
> This one time, at band camp, Michael Stone said:
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 07:27:14PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > >I think one the reason why clamav is in volatile is that the engine
> > >might need updating to detect new viruses. Is that something you
> > >want to support in stable-security
This one time, at band camp, Michael Stone said:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 07:27:14PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >I think one the reason why clamav is in volatile is that the engine
> >might need updating to detect new viruses. Is that something you
> >want to support in stable-security?
>
> I t
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 07:27:14PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I think one the reason why clamav is in volatile is that the engine
might need updating to detect new viruses. Is that something you
want to support in stable-security?
I think there's a couple of questions to answer:
1) is there any
* Kurt Roeckx:
>> For ClamAV and ClamAV-derived packages, I'd prefer to see uploads of
>> new upstream versions to stable-security or stable-proposed-updates
>> (that is, remove it from volatile).
>
> I think one the reason why clamav is in volatile is that the engine
> might need updating to dete
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 10:06:41PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Luk Claes:
>
> > Currently the security support for the volatile archive is supposed
> > to be taken care of by the uploaders of the respective packages.
> >
> > I think it would make sense to have someone or a team tracking
> > s
> * Luk Claes:
>
> > Currently the security support for the volatile archive is supposed
> > to be taken care of by the uploaders of the respective packages.
> >
> > I think it would make sense to have someone or a team tracking
> > security issues for volatile.
> >
> > What do you think? Is anyon
* Luk Claes:
> Currently the security support for the volatile archive is supposed
> to be taken care of by the uploaders of the respective packages.
>
> I think it would make sense to have someone or a team tracking
> security issues for volatile.
>
> What do you think? Is anyone up to providing
10 matches
Mail list logo
