| 1 |
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 01:28, William Kenworthy wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'm using the workaround of manually deleting the problem patch during |
| 3 |
> the build. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> The problem for gentoo that I see is that with the removal of -r1 (and |
| 6 |
> xfree being the only viable alternative is not available either), gentoo |
| 7 |
> does not have a usable desktop for those actually using it in |
| 8 |
> production, so this should be viewed as a serious issue that requires |
| 9 |
> active resolution - just leaving this issue in place until we catch up |
| 10 |
> with upstream means this is going to become a running sore for gentoo. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> We (the users) need a stable, secure, and working X. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
where did you get the idea, that a moving target like gentoo is apropriate for |
| 15 |
a production box? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If you put gentoo onto such a box, it is your very own problem. If you want |
| 18 |
total stability and a lot of testing prior a patch goes out, maybe you should |
| 19 |
spent the bucks and buy SLES or RHEL |
| 20 |
If something breaks with them, you have a right to whine. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Oh, and by the way: for me X is stable, secure and working - everybody has |
| 23 |
different needs. |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |
Archives