1 |
On 2017-05-07 21:23, David Seifert wrote: |
2 |
> TL;DR |
3 |
> ia64/ppc/sparc teams are pretty much dead. They have been for a long |
4 |
> time and this won't change any time soon. Gentoo should focus its |
5 |
> resources on archs that are important and has the manpower to support. |
6 |
> Let us please drop these 3 archs to dev profiles to ease maintenance. |
7 |
|
8 |
+1 |
9 |
|
10 |
In security project we are currently discussing something similar. I.e. |
11 |
we wanted to ask council (after talking with ATs) to drop security |
12 |
coverage for sparc like we have already dropped support for ia64. |
13 |
|
14 |
While discussing I raised the question if it isn't confusing to have |
15 |
|
16 |
- ~arch (testing) |
17 |
- arch (stable) |
18 |
- arch with security coverage (stable without security) |
19 |
|
20 |
and suggested to drop the latter. Given that gentoo.org says "Security |
21 |
is a primary focus of Gentoo Linux" it doesn't make any sense for me to |
22 |
have a *stable* architecture without security coverage. |
23 |
|
24 |
It isn't like security project adds any additional load to any arch |
25 |
team, an architecture capable to keep up with normal keyword and |
26 |
stabilization requests should also be able to keep up with security. In |
27 |
other words: Any architecture lacking behind security is also lacking |
28 |
behind normal keyword and stabilization procedure... |
29 |
|
30 |
So I would highly appreciate such a change. |
31 |
|
32 |
If we won't do something like that but will drop security coverage, |
33 |
managing all the open security bugs will become very challenging because |
34 |
then we will also have to track bugs where architectures with security |
35 |
coverage are done but stable architectures without security coverage |
36 |
blocking cleanup and things like that. |
37 |
|
38 |
But to be clear: I am just sharing *my* view with you. I am not security |
39 |
project lead so I am not speaking for the project. I guess Yury |
40 |
(blueknight), current security project lead, will jump into this |
41 |
discussion very soon. |
42 |
|
43 |
|
44 |
-- |
45 |
Regards, |
46 |
Thomas |