| 1 |
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:58:01 -0700 |
| 2 |
Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I bumped the vanilla-kernel sources yesterday, and deleted some |
| 5 |
> obsolete, and known-insecure versions at the same time (i.e. the 3.7 |
| 6 |
> and 3.8 ebuilds.) |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Thank you for keeping an eye on them; I got into a habit of only |
| 9 |
bumping gentoo-sources, so I don't always remind the to do vanilla, |
| 10 |
I'll do my best to add it to the habbit in the future. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> They were added back because they were the last releases marked |
| 13 |
> "stable" for some arches. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Yes, this is actively being checked to avoid that there is no stable |
| 16 |
kernel present; if you don't want that to happen then you should make |
| 17 |
an individual arrangement with the arch teams, such that they are aware |
| 18 |
that the stabilization of this package is individually arranged. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Since ago does stabilizations for multiple arches, is involved in |
| 21 |
security bugs and did the restore on this particular package; I have |
| 22 |
added him to CC so he is aware of this discussion going on. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.kernel/697 |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> In thinking about this, that's totally wrong. Either all of these |
| 27 |
> ebuilds are marked stable, or none are. And we should really NEVER |
| 28 |
> have known buggy ebuilds marked stable for the vanilla kernels, as |
| 29 |
> that's just dangerous on many different levels. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> So, should I just mark these always stable, or never stable? I don't |
| 32 |
> think we should mix the two, as the previous versions are always known |
| 33 |
> buggy, and have problems, and shouldn't be used. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I think it may be a nice idea to have vanilla-sources reflect upstream; |
| 36 |
that is, always stable and drop versions which are not. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
If possible we could script it to keep the package unstable the first X |
| 39 |
days it is in Portage to keep the stabilization effect in place; that |
| 40 |
way Gentoo users are unaffected if something goes wrong the day after |
| 41 |
you push a patch, I assume not, but you never know. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
With kind regards, |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 47 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 50 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 51 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives