Monthly Updates versus Monthly Images

[Jamie Strandboge]

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/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 899 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20130305/7855d3a8/attachment.pgp>