| 1 |
On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 08:03:04AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Andreas K. Huettel |
| 3 |
> <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > For proposing agenda items and discussion of these, please reply to this mail |
| 6 |
> > on the gentoo-project mailing list. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I think that it is probably worth discussing what the right policy |
| 10 |
> should be around allowing masked packages to remain in the tree (if |
| 11 |
> they have a maintainer). This would include packages with documented |
| 12 |
> security flaws in the mask message, but it could also include other |
| 13 |
> kinds of flaws. If the maintainer wants to keep them around, should |
| 14 |
> they be permitted to? Are there any conditions on this, or is it |
| 15 |
> maintainer-preference as long as it stays masked? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> See: |
| 18 |
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/94200 |
| 19 |
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/94199 |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
(qa hat firmly in place) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I gave people several weeks to respond to the last rites and discuss |
| 24 |
which packages should be kept. I will adjust my list based on their |
| 25 |
responses. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
That's the whole point of a last rites, to get people to step up and |
| 28 |
take responsibility for packages. Also, this was cleared with the qa |
| 29 |
lead before it was ever sent out. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
So I am operating clearly within the scope of qa, since the job of QA is |
| 32 |
to keep the tree in a consistent state for our users. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
So with all respect, I don't understand why this even needs to be |
| 35 |
escalated to the council. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Thanks, |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
William |
Archives