| 1 |
> > > Is this the only motivation? Drop all the effort that has been put into |
| 2 |
> > > stabilization work on minor arches just for some impatient maintainers? |
| 3 |
> > > |
| 4 |
> > > Keywording/Stabilization is a process we all agreed on joining, so live |
| 5 |
> > > with it. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Minor arches holding up GLSAs and removal of vulnerable stable ebuilds |
| 8 |
> > for 3 months or more is *not* acceptable, and not something I agreed |
| 9 |
> > to when joining... |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > If they can't even do security stabilizations in a reasonable |
| 12 |
> > timeframe, they have no business being considered stable arches. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I think this is a good point but again needs to be defined somewhere |
| 15 |
> besides comments on a ML. If an ARCH is not able to respond to a GLSA |
| 16 |
> within a reasonable timeframe due to lack of developer resources, then it |
| 17 |
> shouldn't be offically supported by Gentoo Linux. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The braindead thing is that the GLSA is only going out after all arches have |
| 20 |
stabilized. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Meaning, the slowest arch in practice blocks the GLSA process. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Andreas K. Huettel |
| 26 |
Gentoo Linux developer |
| 27 |
kde, sci, arm, tex, printing |
Archives