| 1 |
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> It isn't like security project adds any additional load to any arch |
| 4 |
> team, an architecture capable to keep up with normal keyword and |
| 5 |
> stabilization requests should also be able to keep up with security. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
What about arches that use stable keywords only on a core set of |
| 8 |
system packages to indicate that they're usable, so that they can have |
| 9 |
a stage3 that actually boots? I'm not sure they even keep up with |
| 10 |
security in this case. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Perhaps they could just use ~arch for the same purpose, but then we'd |
| 13 |
need to have a policy that REMOVES ~arch when doing bumps on those |
| 14 |
architectures, which is not our current practice. Otherwise a revbump |
| 15 |
could break stage3 on those arches. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I'm not sure that stable+secure is necessarily a black-and-white thing |
| 18 |
on our non-mainstream arches. Honestly, I think that people who want |
| 19 |
to run linux on MIPS/sparc/etc are probably happy enough just to have |
| 20 |
something that boots. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Rich |
Archives