1 |
Am Mittwoch 16 August 2006 12:18 schrieb Ian P. Christian: |
2 |
> On 08/16/06 Paul Kölle wrote: |
3 |
> > The basic problem here is: Upstream may not publish "security fixes" |
4 |
> > but just a new (fixed) version. If you want a "stable" tree, you have |
5 |
> > to watch upstream cvs/svn/mailing lists and backport fixes. That is a |
6 |
> > lot of work. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> that infrastructure is already in place in gentoo. Package maintainers |
9 |
> do it... they need to just make it clear when they update an ebuild |
10 |
> weather it's a general upgrade, or a security upgrade. |
11 |
|
12 |
I think every update because of security reasons has a security announcement. |
13 |
|
14 |
I would be willing to start such a stable tree, I am thinking of taking a |
15 |
current portage tree, delete all ~arch ebuilds and create an overlay. Every |
16 |
time a security announcement is fired up I will add the newer ebuild to the |
17 |
overlay, checking for any really needed depencies. |
18 |
|
19 |
The main portage tree will be updatedwith every new release, and the older |
20 |
trees will be supported until three new releases. Supported architecture |
21 |
would be currently only x86. |
22 |
|
23 |
The overlay and the portage snapshot will I make public available. |
24 |
|
25 |
What do you think about this? |
26 |
The main problem is that it does not match the philosophy of gentoo. If other |
27 |
architectures should also be available it would be a lot of work. |
28 |
|
29 |
Regards |
30 |
|
31 |
Jan |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |