Comment 18 for bug 1746598
Revision history for this message
| Matthias Klose (doko) wrote Re: [Bug 1746598] Re: [MIR] libnfs | #18 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
1b1ed1a
(Get the code!)
On 19.03.19 16:20, Łukasz Zemczak wrote:
> Looking at this with my SRU hat on, I'd prefer if we could avoid
> backporting a completely new upstream version to bionic especially if
> there is a soname bump involved. It's not impossible of course, we do
> that for certain projects when there's need for it, but I'd suppose we
> would require a 'hard' rationale for that. Not sure if we have a strong
> one like that here.
>
> Security team - what changes/bugfixes do you think would be needed
> before the package is good for main in those stable series? Such
> information would also be very useful for us in the SRU team to assess
> the situation. We could then decide if the gvfs nfs support feature is a
> no-go, the libnfs security-bugfix changes need to be cherry-picked or
> maybe the rationale for 3.0.0 should be revisit.
the MIR team asked for the new upstream for promotion. Now promoting the old
version for older releases wouldn't be much appreciated.