| 1 |
On Sun, 2004-09-19 at 14:00, Seemant Kulleen wrote: |
| 2 |
> Before Randy left, he'd promised to give me access to his s390, but that |
| 3 |
> never materialised, so at this point I'd say there's no access. Seeing |
| 4 |
> as it's effectively an unmaintained port with no ETA on Randy, I say |
| 5 |
> either remove s390 from KEYWORDS which it blocks or stable it and let |
| 6 |
> the fallout happen when s390 returns to being an active port. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Letting it fallout would simplify the job of the security team. I think |
| 9 |
we can/should revisit it and it's keywords when we have a developers and |
| 10 |
some sort of resources other developers can test on/with. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Grant please add this as an item to discuss at Mondays meeting. |
| 13 |
(Should we drop the s390 port for now?) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
-- |
| 16 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 17 |
Gentoo (hardened,security,infrastructure,embedded,toolchain) Developer |
Archives