1 |
On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 21:02 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> X and Y are pretty much irrelevant. The important factor is Z, the |
3 |
> impact of leaving things the way they are. |
4 |
|
5 |
...and the idea is to let the Council decide what level of Z is |
6 |
acceptable. Currently, it appears as if the "issue" is maintainers |
7 |
being forced to keep abhorrently old versions of packages, including |
8 |
security-vulnerable packages, simply because a security-unsupported |
9 |
architecture hasn't had time to test/update/whatever. |
10 |
|
11 |
This has been an issue for quite some time. Of course, the impact is |
12 |
debatable, but it seems that we cannot agree ourselves on what is |
13 |
agreeable, so I see this as a point to bring to the Council simply so it |
14 |
can be resolved "once and for all" and things can resume normal |
15 |
operation. I know that I, as an ebuild developer, would be much more |
16 |
comfortable/accepting of having to keep around old versions of packages, |
17 |
if the Council had deemed it to be something "important" enough. No |
18 |
offence to any alternative architectures or their hard-working team |
19 |
members, but there are some times when we have to look at the common |
20 |
good, and forcing maintainers to spend time keeping older ebuilds that |
21 |
are possibly using older ebuild code and other idiosyncrasies versus the |
22 |
current versions for the more mainstream architectures simply might not |
23 |
be worth it for architectures with a very minimal number of users. |
24 |
|
25 |
I've heard some suggestions for removing stable KEYWORDS on arches that |
26 |
aren't security supported. I see this as a possible solution to such |
27 |
issues, since ~arch packages aren't "security-supported" in the sense of |
28 |
GLSA and such, so why not keep arches which aren't security-supported |
29 |
from having stable KEYWORDS? Of course, this is a "global" change which |
30 |
affects multiple architectures, so it should be deferred to the Council. |
31 |
I don't really think it requires a large amount of discussion simply |
32 |
because it is simple to see how it would come to a swift stand-still. |
33 |
The arch teams affected will want nothing to change, the package |
34 |
maintainers will want to make things easier on themselves. This is to |
35 |
be expected. We elect the Council for a reason. Making decisions like |
36 |
this is one of them. Let's let them do their job and follow their |
37 |
leadership. |
38 |
|
39 |
-- |
40 |
Chris Gianelloni |
41 |
Release Engineering Strategic Lead |
42 |
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams |
43 |
Games Developer/Foundation Trustee |
44 |
Gentoo Foundation |