| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:32:09 -0600 |
| 3 |
> Martin Jackson <mjolnir@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Perhaps you should have explicitly stated in the bug that it was for |
| 5 |
>>> security reasons and thus a priority. Make things easy for the arch |
| 6 |
>>> teams -- if you have useful information like that, provide it in an |
| 7 |
>>> easy to see place. Looking at that bug, I don't see anything |
| 8 |
>>> indicating that there's any reason it should have been considered |
| 9 |
>>> over more widely used packages. |
| 10 |
>> Because setuptools is not widely used? |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> The sec bug was (and remains) linked as a blocker. Is that not |
| 13 |
>> explicit or easy enough? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> When arch people get dozens to hundreds of bug emails per day, no, it's |
| 16 |
> not. A simple "this is now a security issue, see bug blah" makes it an |
| 17 |
> awful lot easier for arch people to prioritise -- emails that merely |
| 18 |
> show blockers added or removed tend to get ignored because a) they're |
| 19 |
> almost always meaningless changes from the arch team's perspective, and |
| 20 |
> b) the bug email doesn't convey any useful information on its own |
| 21 |
> anyway. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
To be clear, the security issue didn't arise until November 7, 2007. |
| 25 |
The request to keyword setuptools was *not* a security issue until then. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Thanks, |
| 28 |
Marty |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives