| 1 |
Friedrich Oslage wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Sonntag, den 05.10.2008, 16:26 -0500 schrieb Steev Klimaszewski: |
| 3 |
>> Thoughts? Helps? |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Afaik we have 3 types of arches: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> - experimental |
| 9 |
> They are not CCed on stablization bugs and don't do stablizations at |
| 10 |
> all. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> ~mips, ~sparc-fbsd and ~x86-fbsd |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> - unsupported |
| 15 |
> They are CCed on stablizations bugs, but they are not supported by the |
| 16 |
> Gentoo Linux Security Project. It may take quite long until they |
| 17 |
> actually do the stablization. But I'm also wondering why some of their |
| 18 |
> profiles are marked as "dev". |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> arm, ia64, m68k, sh, s390 |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> - supported |
| 23 |
> Most popular arches, supported by the Gentoo Linux Security Project, |
| 24 |
> they usually do your stablizations in time unless it requires some |
| 25 |
> exotic hardware(the devs/ats don't have) to test. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> alpha, amd64, hppa, sparc, ppc, ppc64, x86 |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Sources: |
| 30 |
> - commits logs |
| 31 |
> - http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/vulnerability-policy.xml |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I would suggest moving all the "slacking" arches to "experimental" until |
| 34 |
there is desire from the dev community (read: manpower) to support a |
| 35 |
stable tree again. Until then, it seems pretty pointless to keep |
| 36 |
assigning bugs to these arches and they just keep rotting there because |
| 37 |
no one gets around to them. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
2 cents, |
| 40 |
-Jeremy |
Archives