glibc/eglibc: proposed promotion to security/updates

[Martin Pitt]

Hey Steve,

Steve Beattie [2016-05-25  1:17 -0700]:
> Bah, sorry, I missed that due to some excessive mail filtering,
> My apologies.

No worries!

> [While I support and appreciate all the efforts that that go into
> the adt infrastructure, things seem awfully... brittle. Is there
> something the community can do to make them a more reliable indicator
> of regressions?]

I guess the best thing would be to actually fix tests :-) For most of
the broken ones we earn from Debian we actually have overrides, but
they tend to be maintained for the devel series only. E. g. a test
might get fixed in devel, we drop the "force-badtest" override, but
now the test would appear as a failure in stables. Perhaps we need
per-series overrides to clean this up.

That said, glibc is a particular beast as it triggers pretty much
every test that exists. So keeping all of it to green in all stables
is a huuge task :/

> Operationally, "you" (archive admins) can go ahead and release them
> to the security pocket at your convenience and I'll issue the USNs
> afterward.

Thanks for confirming. Done now.

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/ce13d5d6/attachment-0001.pgp>