Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Thomas Kahle <tomka@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] How do we handle stabilisations of not-exactly-maintained packages
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:56:04
Message-Id: 20110921165335.GI12639@denkmatte
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] How do we handle stabilisations of not-exactly-maintained packages by Rich Freeman
On 12:10 Wed 21 Sep 2011, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Maybe we need to rethink the definition of "stable" in these > situations. I think it still doesn't hurt to have some kind of QA > cycle internally for something like firefox. Plus at least with > firefox the old versions don't suddenly stop working/etc, assuming > they still get upstream security notices.
I agree that these new 'channel' concepts are not very compatible with out stable/testing tree model and security stabilizations. Every single stabilization (except the first) of www-client/chromium for instance is a security stabilization. Chromium goes stable early and with the 'it's a security-bug, small problems can be ingored'-hat on. The reason that the same is not true for firefox is kind of stupid: They provide security updates for their legacy version. So in this case all the bugs need to be considered and we don't stable version 6, 7, ... in a timely manner. Cheers, Thomas -- Thomas Kahle http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies