Bug#918848: Plans for stretch-backports wrt. CVE-2018-16864, CVE-2018-16865 and CVE-2018-16866?

[intrigeri]

Hi Michael!

Thanks for the quick answer.

Michael Biebl:
> Am 13.01.19 um 10:46 schrieb intrigeri:
>> What's your plan wrt. stretch-backports? 

> I do think we nailed the worst regressions by now, so my plan was to
> wait until 240-4 has migrated to testing and then upload that to
> stretch-backports, for the simple reason that this means less effort for
> me.

This is reassuring.

> If someone want's to backport the fixes to 239-12~bpo9+1, that would
> obviously ok with me as well.

*If* we decide to fall back to this option for Tails, I'll happily
share the Git branch (and even upload to stretch-backports after
someone reviews it). But I do hope we won't have to go that way.

>> FWIW, on the Tails side I'll build a custom backport of 240-4 and will
>> run it through the Tails integration test suite, because we have other
>> incentives to upgrade (getting the fixes for
>> https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/9461) and I'd rather do this
>> upgrade now in a controlled, relaxed way, than at the last minute
>> before our freeze (if v240 is uploaded to stretch-backports on
>> Jan 17-18).

> Please let us know about the results of those tests.
> If 240-4 fails horribly, we could revisit the decision to upload this
> version to stretch-backports.

Will do!

Cheers,
-- 
intrigeri