1 |
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 02:59:56AM +0000, Tim Yamin wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 04:43:18PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: |
3 |
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 11:31:01PM +0000, John Mylchreest wrote: |
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 |
gentoo-kernel@g.o mailing list |