| 1 |
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 09.12.2016 kell 21:54, kirjutas Aaron Bauman: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> They must be connected, because we cannot properly clean the tree if |
| 4 |
> they are not. Otherwise, we would break the dependency tree. As |
| 5 |
> long |
| 6 |
> as the packages are marked stable, we can somewhat ensure that users |
| 7 |
> will not be exposed to vulnerable code, but not entirely. We cannot |
| 8 |
> publish a GLSA if there is no stable upgrade path for the user |
| 9 |
> either. |
| 10 |
> Why would that be acceptable? Given a "dozen users will know what to |
| 11 |
> do," then why build tooling for such a small audience? If they know |
| 12 |
> what to do, then we should expect that they will know what to do |
| 13 |
> without |
| 14 |
> being a stable arch. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> > Or as a temporary measure propose the removal of these arches from |
| 17 |
> the |
| 18 |
> > list of security supported (I don't believe one of them is security |
| 19 |
> > supported even now), and move back to security supported once the |
| 20 |
> > process is more streamlined from the workflow efforts going into |
| 21 |
> there |
| 22 |
> > now. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Aside from the above items, I think this proposal becomes confusing |
| 27 |
> for |
| 28 |
> the user. My arch is stable... but not security supported? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Yes. See your own documentation at |
| 31 |
https://www.gentoo.org/support/security/vulnerability-treatment-policy.html |
| 32 |
for a list of security supported architectures and documentation on |
| 33 |
stabling of not security supported architectures must not be waited for |
| 34 |
a stable fix to proceed. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Mart |
Archives