Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 04:19:44
Message-Id: 1199506450.7609.23.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January by Ciaran McCreesh
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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o>