| 1 |
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:51:44PM +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Third, many folks want long-term support of these releases. I *don't* |
| 4 |
> think this is viable and am not willing to personally sponsor this. A core |
| 5 |
> component of this GLEP is that we will *not* be backporting security fixes. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
So what would happen for security fixes? Rely on the latest release |
| 8 |
from upstream to be used instead? This can cause real problems, as a |
| 9 |
lot of SATA users just found out with the most recent Fedora kernel |
| 10 |
update due to the security fix. They went with the most recent kernel, |
| 11 |
which happened to rename their disk drives. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
What is the downside of just backporting the security fixes to the |
| 14 |
versions marked "stable" (becides developer time)? I really think this |
| 15 |
is something most people who want a "stable" tree will want to have (if |
| 16 |
for no other reason than that's how all the other Linux distros do it, |
| 17 |
and it will take less effort trying to explain why we don't...) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
thanks, |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
greg k-h |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives