On 03/05/2013 12:19 PM, Marc Deslauriers wrote: > On 13-03-05 08:34 AM, Adam Conrad wrote: > <snip> >> 2) No out-of-band support at all, SRU or security. The only slight change >> from how we do things now would be that security updates destined for >> the development release would be built in the security PPA (which does >> not build against -proposed), so they don't pick up new dependencies >> and can then be copied to the archive and not accidentally get caught >> up in library transition snags that hinder their migration to the >> release pocket. > > I assume we would do this so the urgent security updates don't get stuck > in -proposed for a longer than desired timeframe? The problem with doing > this is it's going to be really hard for us to not collide with version > numbers, and making sure that subsequent uploads still contain the > security fix, etc. While it may be worthwhile for a world-burning issue, > I don't see this as being reasonable for the majority of security > updates for which we'll simply upload them as usual. >
Isn't dropped patches always a problem, even now? I was thinking we would push 'normal' security updates to the dev release (ie, through -proposed and not in our PPA). These are the ones that we wouldn't have pushed through -security in the previous proposal. For high priority updates, we only build in our PPA unless it also exists in -proposed, in which case, we build in both our PPA and -proposed (and since we are preparing the updates, we control the versions so that shouldn't be an issue). This isn't much different than the previous proposal. -- Jamie Strandboge http://www.ubuntu.com/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
