| 1 |
On 8/8/06, Alex Efros <powerman@××××××××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Hi! |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 10:11:23PM +0200, Sune Kloppenborg Jeppesen wrote: |
| 6 |
> > - Unstable uses usually get the fix hours or even days before the GLSA |
| 7 |
> is |
| 8 |
> > issued. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Why? I think security is important enough to force at least SOME admins to |
| 11 |
> upgrade packet from current "stable, with security hole" to "unstable, |
| 12 |
> without |
| 13 |
> security hole"... but for this admins must know about this security hole |
| 14 |
> as soon as fix for it become available, no matter in x86 or ~x86. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The maintainer provides a new ebuild, but (s)he is not allowed to stable of |
| 18 |
for any architecture, unless (s)he is a member of that architecture team. So |
| 19 |
often you have a fixed ebuild within the first day, but testing and stabling |
| 20 |
takes some time. (But sometime, you also have to wait weeks for a patch. But |
| 21 |
that is another story). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If this is update is so important to admins, they are welcome to monitor our |
| 24 |
bugzilla activity to get 0-sec announcements of fixed ebuilds. |
Archives