| 1 |
On 08-11-2012 11:45:48 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> > - approve/disapprove removal of gen_usr_ldscript |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> A better way to put this is disabling gen_usr_ldscript on Linux. |
| 5 |
> Some of the alternate platforms still use it, so I do not advocate |
| 6 |
> killing the function. |
| 7 |
> If we go forward with the plan, there is no reason the council should |
| 8 |
> reject disabling gen_usr_ldscript on Linux that I am aware of. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> This also has to wait until the blockers are resolved on the tracker. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Do you suggest to drop the point from the agenda? I'd love that. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> > - define timeframe |
| 15 |
> > * 30 days |
| 16 |
> > * 6 months |
| 17 |
> > * 1 year |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Once the blockers are done and we release a news item, implementing |
| 20 |
> one of the choices is a matter of emerging a package, possibly running a |
| 21 |
> command (genkernel with the appropriate options) and updating your boot |
| 22 |
> loader configuration before your next reboot. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Considering that we are holding back stabilizations of more and more |
| 25 |
> packages the longer we wait, is it really a good idea to extend the time |
| 26 |
> frame to 6 months or a year? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Yes. I don't think it is reasonable to have a very short timeframe for |
| 29 |
having to make such a potentially dangerous change. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Fabian |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 36 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives