| 1 |
weeve@g.o said: |
| 2 |
> I personally would very much like to leave ChangeLogs as they are. |
| 3 |
> We already have tools to make sure they are in the right format |
| 4 |
> (though repoman doesn't check for it and yes developers can choose |
| 5 |
> not to use these tools). I think changing them over to XML would |
| 6 |
> be more overhead in file size and in required tools to parse them |
| 7 |
> than is really necessary. If the problem is that people can't |
| 8 |
> follow directions, then don't punish those of us who do. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I second that feeling. If what we're trying to achieve is to have a |
| 11 |
way to signal to the sysadmins that a security update is present, why |
| 12 |
not just add a [S] entry to 'emerge -pv'? That way the community |
| 13 |
packaging gentoo can stay on step with the development of the upstream |
| 14 |
project (low cost), and the sysadmin was to decide (and take the cost) |
| 15 |
for doing the upgrade of his installed packages with security holes. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Doing this would put some stress on the ability to run different |
| 18 |
packages from different eras together on the same box. The flexible |
| 19 |
dependency system we have today _should_ prove useful to make that |
| 20 |
happen, and if there are packages with too tight requirements on |
| 21 |
versions of other packages it uses, we should bring that issue up with |
| 22 |
the upstream project. Taking it upon ourselves to do backports etc is |
| 23 |
just to costly, imho. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
/A |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives