| 1 |
On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 15:33 -0400, Yury German wrote: |
| 2 |
> I would prefer PPC and for that matter arm (which are no longer |
| 3 |
> security |
| 4 |
> supported) going the Non-stable route. This would prevent the need |
| 5 |
> for |
| 6 |
> stabilization and everything but @system we can instruct the users to |
| 7 |
> use ~ppc. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> This would also allow for security to not drop it from security |
| 10 |
> supported arches and just follow a more relaxed policy for non-stable |
| 11 |
> packages. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> For those not familiar, we (security) only need to have the package |
| 14 |
> in |
| 15 |
> tree and the vulnerable packages dropped, which is easily |
| 16 |
> accomplished |
| 17 |
> by the maintainer with no need for arches to get involved. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Yury German (BlueKnight) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
This solution doesn't go far enough for me - mainly because it still |
| 22 |
makes KEYWORDREQs a pain. |
Archives