1 |
Hi! |
2 |
|
3 |
The gentoo-dev list is not the right place to keep up discussion on why |
4 |
or how the hardened-sources will be removed. Not this thread which is |
5 |
about the news item. |
6 |
|
7 |
Most packages just get masked and removed in 30 days for example without |
8 |
sending a news item just an e-mail to gentoo-dev-announce. The only |
9 |
reason why we are sending it is because most Gentoo Hardened users were |
10 |
using the hardened-sources and deserve a heads-up as to what will happen |
11 |
to them and what can they do after (as there will be no clear and simple |
12 |
upgrade path with similar features). |
13 |
|
14 |
Please do send further answers to gentoo-hardened which is the porject's |
15 |
mailing list. |
16 |
|
17 |
El 18/08/17 a las 02:59, R0b0t1 escribió: |
18 |
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera |
19 |
> (klondike) <klondike@g.o> wrote: |
20 |
>> El 15/08/17 a las 17:50, R0b0t1 escribió: |
21 |
>>> Where was this decision discussed? |
22 |
>> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-hardened/message/62ebc2e26d91e8f079197c2c83788cff |
23 |
>> |
24 |
>> And many other threads in that list for example, those are just blueness |
25 |
>> (the package maintainer) conclussions. |
26 |
>>> The last available kernel is |
27 |
>>> apparently receiving long term support, there may not be any reason to |
28 |
>>> remove it. |
29 |
>> Not by the original upstream, and definitively not in the way in which |
30 |
>> Grsec used to (manually cherrypicking security related commits and not |
31 |
>> just those marked as security related). |
32 |
>> |
33 |
> All blueness says in that is that he can't personally support the |
34 |
> patches. That's fine, and nobody that I know of ever expected him to |
35 |
> do that. However, until they are unfixably broken, why remove them? |
36 |
> Keeping them until a suitable replacement is available seems like the |
37 |
> best option available. |
38 |
> There's no criteria in that notice for when they would be removed. |
39 |
> What criteria was used to decide they are generating useless work and |
40 |
> should be removed? |
41 |
They are already unfixably broken. They are affected by stack clash |
42 |
(when using certain obscure configs but nonetheless). They are to all |
43 |
effects unmaintained (as in upstream not publishing patches we can |
44 |
provide to you). And I'd rather not look at what other fixes came in the |
45 |
4.9 tree since then that I have missed. |
46 |
>> Although minipli's kernel patches are good and I personally recommend |
47 |
>> them, this is not something the Gentoo Hardened team will do. Also they |
48 |
>> probably should be renamed something else. |
49 |
> I'm not sure anyone is asking the hardened team to do anything, except |
50 |
> for people on the hardened team who want to remove the patches. |
51 |
Then please address blueness about this (on the aforementioned thread) |
52 |
and not me. I'm just the messenger who was asked to deliver the news. |
53 |
>>> If it isn't broken and creating work yet I'm not sure why |
54 |
>>> anyone cares. |
55 |
>> Go to #gentoo-hardened and see how there is people asking about this |
56 |
>> again and again :P |
57 |
>> |
58 |
> I'm not sure what you mean. There are people asking about it, but that |
59 |
> doesn't necessarily mean they want it to happen. If something is done |
60 |
> people are going to discuss it regardless of what it is. |
61 |
I mean people is asking "what happens with the hardened-sources?" and we |
62 |
having to answer. Now at least we have a clear path of action announced. |
63 |
> Please understand, I don't want to keep an old version of the kernel |
64 |
> and associated patches around forever, just until a replacement is |
65 |
> actually found. |
66 |
There are a few replacements, we aren't just providing an ebuild in the |
67 |
portage tree for them (except for gentoo-sources, of course). |
68 |
|
69 |
If you want to keep the ebuilds and patches I recommend you set up a |
70 |
personal overlay instead. |