Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: aeriksson@××××××××.fm
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Revisiting GLEP 19
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:28:02
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.
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.
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.
25 /A
28 --
29 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Revisiting GLEP 19 Stuart Herbert <stuart@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Revisiting GLEP 19 Lina Pezzella <j4rg0n@g.o>