| 1 |
Steve Long schrieb: |
| 2 |
>> In any event, what I'd like to raise is the issue of having a |
| 3 |
>> (semi-)official version of gentoo that lags behind the cutting-edge distro |
| 4 |
>> for stability. Is this feasible? |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> Apologies if this is already being discussed elsewhere. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> I appreciate that there is GLEP 19 according to earlier discussion on this |
| 9 |
> list (from 2004). |
| 10 |
The GLEP has been withdrawn by the author. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I guess I'm asking whether it's a) more feasible now (I'm guessing yes) and |
| 14 |
> b) whether it's something that would have any support from current devs. |
| 15 |
> Not in terms of workload, but culturally. |
| 16 |
You can't take workload out of the picture since it's the main issue |
| 17 |
here. Stable tree means backport fixes and I don't see this happening as |
| 18 |
it can't be automated: |
| 19 |
-there is no agreed machine parsable format/central location for CVEs/bugs. |
| 20 |
-you can't rely on upstream issuing security patches not tied to new |
| 21 |
releases (with new bugs/features). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
So who is going to watch all that mailing lists, pulling code from |
| 24 |
upstream, patching, testing, etc.? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Don't get me wrong. I'd really love to have a more "stable" base system |
| 27 |
at least for core packages and those prone to break remote reboots ;) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
cheers |
| 30 |
Paul |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives