| 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. |
| 7 |
|
| 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.
|
| 11 |
|
| 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").
|
| 17 |
|
| 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:
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Sure, you can close bugs and pretend that a problem doesn't exist |
| 22 |
|
| 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.
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
We haven't yet talked about the risk of broken deptrees because some
|
| 29 |
tooling will ignore non-stable architectures by default.
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
[1]
|
| 33 |
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/a3c7a6cb7596a5ff9102e4d819a52d9c
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
--
|
| 37 |
Regards,
|
| 38 |
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
|
| 39 |
fpr: C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 |
Archives