1 |
OK so it obviously DID send and I just never recieved it! lol |
2 |
Sorry, please ignore my most recent email. |
3 |
|
4 |
> > > > 3. Genpatches-Base Support |
5 |
> > > > |
6 |
> > > > For as long as there is a kernel package in the tree using genpatches, |
7 |
> > > > the corresponding genpatches-base will be maintained from a security |
8 |
> > > > point of view. Announcements for each update follow the normal |
9 |
> > > > procedure, however there is a caveat. Kernel sources which use |
10 |
> > > > genpatches should not lapse more than 2 minor releases from upstream. |
11 |
> > > > IE: kernel sources should not fall behind 2.6.14 if the most recent |
12 |
> > > > upstream release is 2.6.16. In the extreme case where this is not |
13 |
> > > > technically possible, this will require it being addressed on a |
14 |
> > > > case-by-case basis, and a sectag penalty of 10 applied if appropriate. |
15 |
|
16 |
> > > Wow, we are commiting to support 2 kernel versions back? Since when? |
17 |
> > > That's going to be a major effort that no one has signed up to do (even |
18 |
> > > kernel.org doesn't offer that...) Do we _really_ want to say we are |
19 |
> > > going to do this? |
20 |
> > > |
21 |
> > > If so, we're already behind with all of the recent 2.6.15 security fixes |
22 |
> > > not being backported to 2.6.14 :) |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> > Only they are being backported... kerframil is helping out with that task. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Ah, didn't realize that. Ok, then I have no objections. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> thanks, |
29 |
> |
30 |
> greg k-h |
31 |
|
32 |
Just to stress, its only the genpatches-based sources which are being |
33 |
supported to this degree, and its mainly stable-tree backports - so |
34 |
thankfully a very small footprint. :) |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Role: Gentoo Linux Kernel Lead |
38 |
Gentoo Linux: http://www.gentoo.org |
39 |
Public Key: gpg --recv-keys 9C745515 |
40 |
Key fingerprint: A0AF F3C8 D699 A05A EC5C 24F7 95AA 241D 9C74 5515 |