glibc/eglibc: proposed promotion to security/updates

[Martin Pitt]

Hey Steve,

Steve Beattie [2016-05-25  0:22 -0700]:
> Now that they've been in proposed for a while, I'd like to argue that
> the updates should be moved to the security and updates pockets. I've
> tested each of the versions as I would for a normal security update,
> as well as doing specific testing for the pt_chown issue, looking
> for breakage. I don't see any new bug reports or error reports for
> the specific versions in proposed.
> 
> However, the ADT tests triggered by glibc moving into proposed show a
> number of failures. I've examined these, and I don't believe any of the
> failures are regressions introduced by the glibc packages. What follows
> is my analysis for each listed "regression".

I agree. I already asked about that in

  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/1546457/comments/5

> Given all of the above, I'd like to ask that the glibc/eglibc pacckages
> in proposed be moved to their respective security and updates pockets.

That seems fine to me. Operationally, should "we" (archive admins)
just copy them to -security and you release an USN afterwards, or do
we need to coordinate the timing to have the USN available at the same
time?

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-release/attachments/20160525/442f83f3/attachment.pgp>