| 1 |
On Friday 09 June 2006 02:53, Stefan Schweizer wrote: |
| 2 |
> > It also doesn't answer the questions of security and maintenance. Are |
| 3 |
> > genstef and jokey going to be responsible for the security of every |
| 4 |
> > single package in the overlay? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Yes, we will be acting upon all issues that we hear about. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
... |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> > that is neither supported security wise, nor is |
| 11 |
> > ensured that the ebuilds have a minimal quality (do not fubar a users |
| 12 |
> > system). |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> we do support it security wise, we will be reacting upon security issues. |
| 15 |
> We do have package.mask support in the overlay and we are going to use it. |
| 16 |
> The ebuilds have a quality, repoman is required to be run. Also |
| 17 |
> contributors should be knowing what they are doing - they are submitting an |
| 18 |
> ebuild to the sunrise overlay, it needs to follow certain standards. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
See, I don't go over this bridge, that an overlay of arbitrary packages, with |
| 21 |
varying skills and knowledge needed, can be decently controlled with very few |
| 22 |
people caring and not having a security team backing you up. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Carsten |
Archives