On 19.03.19 16:20, Łukasz Zemczak wrote: > Looking at this with my SRU hat on, I'd prefer if we could avoid > backporting a completely new upstream version to bionic especially if > there is a soname bump involved. It's not impossible of course, we do > that for certain projects when there's need for it, but I'd suppose we > would require a 'hard' rationale for that. Not sure if we have a strong > one like that here. > > Security team - what changes/bugfixes do you think would be needed > before the package is good for main in those stable series? Such > information would also be very useful for us in the SRU team to assess > the situation. We could then decide if the gvfs nfs support feature is a > no-go, the libnfs security-bugfix changes need to be cherry-picked or > maybe the rationale for 3.0.0 should be revisit.
the MIR team asked for the new upstream for promotion. Now promoting the old version for older releases wouldn't be much appreciated. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1746598 Title: [MIR] libnfs To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libnfs/+bug/1746598/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
