Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moving more architectures to ~arch only
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 15:36:31
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moving more architectures to ~arch only by "Michał Górny"
1 On 2021-10-18 19:07, Michał Górny wrote:
2 > Security team arbitrarily deciding that an architecture is
3 > unsupported while otherwise it's supported in Gentoo doesn't change
4 > anything. Sure, you can close bugs and pretend that a problem
5 > doesn't exist... except that you can't if you can't remove the old
6 > version because of keywords.
8 You won't see me defending the idea of allowing stable architectures
9 without security support (this was before I joined Gentoo and I never
10 liked it). But this is what we have for more than 10 years now.
12 However, this was never an arbitrary decision. It was something between
13 arch teams and security project but in the end it was always the arch
14 team's decision because they are the ones doing the work (like "Sorry,
15 we cannot keep up..." -"Well, that's bad but now we have to deal with
16 that").
18 Anyway, I think we are losing focus on topic. I am still waiting for
19 Marecki to answer the motivation behind this. And to quote you:
21 > Sure, you can close bugs and pretend that a problem doesn't exist
23 Sadly, you can say the same for dropping stable keywords (and I think we
24 are not that far away if I understand [1] correctly), not? That's why I
25 asked for the motivation behind this and what people are expecting to
26 become better/what problem will be solved after that change.
28 We haven't yet talked about the risk of broken deptrees because some
29 tooling will ignore non-stable architectures by default.
32 [1]
36 --
37 Regards,
38 Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
39 fpr: C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5


File name MIME type
OpenPGP_signature.asc application/pgp-signature