| 1 |
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 04:43:18PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 11:31:01PM +0000, John Mylchreest wrote: |
| 3 |
> > 3. Genpatches-Base Support |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > For as long as there is a kernel package in the tree using genpatches, |
| 6 |
> > the corresponding genpatches-base will be maintained from a security |
| 7 |
> > point of view. Announcements for each update follow the normal |
| 8 |
> > procedure, however there is a caveat. Kernel sources which use |
| 9 |
> > genpatches should not lapse more than 2 minor releases from upstream. |
| 10 |
> > IE: kernel sources should not fall behind 2.6.14 if the most recent |
| 11 |
> > upstream release is 2.6.16. In the extreme case where this is not |
| 12 |
> > technically possible, this will require it being addressed on a |
| 13 |
> > case-by-case basis, and a sectag penalty of 10 applied if appropriate. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Wow, we are commiting to support 2 kernel versions back? Since when? |
| 16 |
> That's going to be a major effort that no one has signed up to do (even |
| 17 |
> kernel.org doesn't offer that...) Do we _really_ want to say we are |
| 18 |
> going to do this? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> If so, we're already behind with all of the recent 2.6.15 security fixes |
| 21 |
> not being backported to 2.6.14 :) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Only they are being backported... kerframil is helping out with that task. |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-kernel@g.o mailing list |
Archives