| 1 |
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 02.12.2016 kell 15:44, kirjutas Agostino Sarubbo: |
| 2 |
> On Friday 02 December 2016 23:17:13 Aaron Bauman wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > I would like the council to consider dropping IA-64 and SPARC from |
| 5 |
> > the |
| 6 |
> > supported list of stable architectures to increase the security |
| 7 |
> > posture |
| 8 |
> > of the tree. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I would like to ask to keep the things as is. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> The slowdown is caused from the fact that there are no rules for the |
| 13 |
> stabilization requests. |
| 14 |
> We (kensington mainly + wg-stable group) are working to have more |
| 15 |
> automations. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
He is talking about security stabilization bugs here. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I don't understand why stable and security stable have to be connected, |
| 20 |
and why fringe arches are considered stopping the drafting and send-out |
| 21 |
of GLSA. The tooling could special case ia64 and sparc to tell that |
| 22 |
it's not marked stable there yet or whatever when it isn't yet. The |
| 23 |
dozen users will know what to do. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Or as a temporary measure propose the removal of these arches from the |
| 26 |
list of security supported (I don't believe one of them is security |
| 27 |
supported even now), and move back to security supported once the |
| 28 |
process is more streamlined from the workflow efforts going into there |
| 29 |
now. |
Archives