I am of the opinion it is irresponsible to leave vulnerable versions of Qt with
known security bugs any longer in the tree. The Qt team therefore requests
that arches that have not done so already move quickly on stabilizing Qt
4.5.3, see bug 290922 and 283810.
We plan on REMOVING or at the very
Hi!
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009, Ben de Groot wrote:
We especially request ppc64 to be marked as an experimental arch, as it
is the worst one lagging in stabilization. See bug 281821 for a poignant
example, a 3 months open security bug.
As a side note, don't hesitate to poke me or armin76 if you
On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 14:33 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
I am of the opinion it is irresponsible to leave vulnerable versions of Qt
with
known security bugs any longer in the tree. The Qt team therefore requests
that arches that have not done so already move quickly on stabilizing Qt
4.5.3,
Ben de Groot wrote:
I am of the opinion it is irresponsible to leave vulnerable versions of Qt
with
known security bugs any longer in the tree. The Qt team therefore requests
that arches that have not done so already move quickly on stabilizing Qt
4.5.3, see bug 290922 and 283810.
We
Thank you very much for your work on stabling 4.5.3. Sorry I overdid it bit,
I was getting a tad frustrated. I'll try finding the right persons on IRC then,
when I notice bugs going unanswered.
All we need now is hppa.
Cheers,
--
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde,
