| 1 |
On E, 2010-06-28 at 09:49 +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote: |
| 2 |
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> said: |
| 3 |
> > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 08:15:32PM +0200, Auke Booij wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > What? I am talking about exotic arches and I didn't say to drop to |
| 7 |
> > > > entire stable tree. Just to shrink it in order to keep it up to |
| 8 |
> > > > date more easily |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > > But my question stands: what really is the advantage of having a |
| 11 |
> > > stable tree, when you could better invest your time in keeping the |
| 12 |
> > > testing tree up to date and working? Most production systems are |
| 13 |
> > > running x86, right? Are stable versions of minority architecture |
| 14 |
> > > installations really that much more stable than testing versions? |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > Because a stable tree it is supposed to work. Testing tree on the other |
| 17 |
> > hand is vulnerable to breakages from time to time. We can't always |
| 18 |
> > ensure a working testing tree. We are people not machines. We tend to |
| 19 |
> > brake things and this is way we have the testing branch. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> also the stable tree implies security support (GLSAs etc). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Stable tree does NOT imply security support. I can understand why users |
| 24 |
might think that, though. |
| 25 |
A few architectures that have a stable tree are not security supported |
| 26 |
(GLSAs waiting for them, etc), as can be seen from comparing the arches |
| 27 |
with stable trees to the security supported architectures list over at |
| 28 |
http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/vulnerability-policy.xml |
| 29 |
(at least arm, ia64 and sh by my quick comparison) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Mart Raudsepp |
| 34 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 35 |
Mail: leio@g.o |
| 36 |
Weblog: http://blogs.gentoo.org/leio |
Archives