| 1 |
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 29 August 2013 14:09, Michael Weber <xmw@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 08/28/2013 01:15 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> The feedback on the original question was mostly positive. |
| 5 |
>>> Most people agree that the long stabilization queues for these |
| 6 |
>>> architectures create problems |
| 7 |
>>> for maintainers wishing to drop old versions. |
| 8 |
>> Is this the only motivation? Drop all the effort that has been put into |
| 9 |
>> stabilization work on minor arches just for some impatient maintainers? |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Keywording/Stabilization is a process we all agreed on joining, so live |
| 12 |
>> with it. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Minor arches holding up GLSAs and removal of vulnerable stable ebuilds |
| 15 |
> for 3 months or more is *not* acceptable, and not something I agreed |
| 16 |
> to when joining... |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> If they can't even do security stabilizations in a reasonable |
| 19 |
> timeframe, they have no business being considered stable arches. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> -- |
| 22 |
> Cheers, |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Ben | yngwin |
| 25 |
> Gentoo developer |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Has this actually happened? The only thing I ever see about GLSAs is |
| 29 |
the occasional closing of a multi-year-old bug for a version of a |
| 30 |
package no longer in the tree as "no glsa" |
Archives