Archives
Archives
| From: | "Ian P. Christian" <pookey@×××××××××.uk> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-server@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-server] Stable portage tree | ||
| Date: | Wed, 16 Aug 2006 10:21:24 | ||
| Message-Id: | 44E2F10A.1080904@pookey.co.uk | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-server] Stable portage tree by "Paul Kölle" |
||
| 1 | On 08/16/06 Paul Kölle wrote: |
| 2 | > The basic problem here is: Upstream may not publish "security fixes" |
| 3 | > but just a new (fixed) version. If you want a "stable" tree, you have |
| 4 | > to watch upstream cvs/svn/mailing lists and backport fixes. That is a |
| 5 | > lot of work. |
| 6 | |
| 7 | that infrastructure is already in place in gentoo. Package maintainers |
| 8 | do it... they need to just make it clear when they update an ebuild |
| 9 | weather it's a general upgrade, or a security upgrade. |
| 10 | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | -- |
| 13 | Ian P. Christian ~ http://pookey.co.uk |
| File name | MIME type |
|---|---|
| signature.asc | application/pgp-signature |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-server] Stable portage tree | "Paul Kölle" <pkoelle@×××××.com> |
| Re: [gentoo-server] Stable portage tree | Jan Meier <jan.meier@××××××××××××××××.de> |