Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-12-09
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 22:51:30
Message-Id: 20181204225118.5c84778f@sf
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-12-09 by Aaron Bauman
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 19:16:04 -0500
Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote:

> > On 25.11.2018 15:31, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > > > In two weeks from now, there will be a council meeting again. Now is > > > the time to raise and prepare agenda items that you want us to discuss > > > and/or vote upon. > > > > > > Please respond to this message on the gentoo-project mailing list with > > > agenda items. > > > The final agenda will be sent out on 2018-12-02, so please make sure > > > you post any agenda items before that, or we may not be able to > > > accommodate it into the next meeting. > > > > > > The meeting itself will happen on 2018-12-09 19:00 UTC [1] in the > > > #gentoo-council FreeNode IRC channel. > > > > > > > > > 1. https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20181209T19 > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Mart Raudsepp > > I would like to propose, once again, that the council vote on the > following items:
If it's not the first instance can you link to previous discussion of the problem?
> 1. The council approves all architectures that are maintained as stable > architectures. > - e.g. alpha, amd64, arm, arm64, ia64, ppc, ppc64, and x86.
What is the definition of "maintained as stable architectures" in this context? I don't think Gentoo defines those today. The ones that have at least one stable profile in profiles.desc? "Security Project Structure" defines it in even more vague terms: 'the ebuilds in the Gentoo official ebuild repository marked as "stable"' Or you plan to introduce/maintain a separate list of stable arches?
> Conversely, the council also may remove/drop such architectures as > needed (c.f. item 2). > > 2. The council approves that all stable architectures are subsequently > determined to be security supported. Thus, an architecture may not be > stable and *not* security supported. This disparity has implications in > processes and timeliness of actions taken to mitigate vulnerabilities > reported. > - e.g. amd64 is approved as stable arch and thus is security supported. > - e.g. arm is dropped as a stable arch thus is no longer security supported. > > Overall, both of these items will provide a much clearer understanding > of how security is able to proceed with mitigating vulnerabilities in > the tree, how users view and understand what architectures are stable > and security supported, and allow the security team and maintainers a > clearer/cleaner process to follow. > > Standing by to answer RFI's. > > -- > Cheers, > Aaron
-- Sergei