Comment 4 for bug 35528
Revision history for this message
| Dennis Kaarsemaker (dennis) wrote Re: [Bug 35528] Re: security hole in 2.0.2/2.0.3 | #4 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
0e1f616
(Get the code!)
> I don't know what Dapper's security policy is, so I can't be specific,
> but wouldn't a potential remote exploit pretty much automatically
> qualify for a backport?
A backport requires that the source package builds without modification
on dapper. If that's not the case, a fixed package will ned to be
uploaded to -security.
> (And isn't the point of all this malone complexity to handle the
> distinction between dapper and edgy, so that opening another bug is not
> necessary to get it fixed in two versions?)
Yes, a dapper-backports task on this bug is enough.