1 |
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> On 29 August 2013 14:09, Michael Weber <xmw@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>>> On 08/28/2013 01:15 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: |
5 |
>>>> The feedback on the original question was mostly positive. |
6 |
>>>> Most people agree that the long stabilization queues for these |
7 |
>>>> architectures create problems |
8 |
>>>> for maintainers wishing to drop old versions. |
9 |
>>> Is this the only motivation? Drop all the effort that has been put into |
10 |
>>> stabilization work on minor arches just for some impatient maintainers? |
11 |
>>> |
12 |
>>> Keywording/Stabilization is a process we all agreed on joining, so live |
13 |
>>> with it. |
14 |
>> |
15 |
>> Minor arches holding up GLSAs and removal of vulnerable stable ebuilds |
16 |
>> for 3 months or more is *not* acceptable, and not something I agreed |
17 |
>> to when joining... |
18 |
>> |
19 |
>> If they can't even do security stabilizations in a reasonable |
20 |
>> timeframe, they have no business being considered stable arches. |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> -- |
23 |
>> Cheers, |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>> Ben | yngwin |
26 |
>> Gentoo developer |
27 |
>> |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Has this actually happened? The only thing I ever see about GLSAs is |
30 |
> the occasional closing of a multi-year-old bug for a version of a |
31 |
> package no longer in the tree as "no glsa" |
32 |
|
33 |
Ah, I see the m68k bug referenced in this thread. |