From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GeXBW-0004Ld-2J for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:28:14 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k9UDQjxn027897; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:26:45 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9UDNOKd031095 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:23:24 GMT Received: from [192.168.1.213] (unknown [216.200.97.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABE4B64B2A for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:23:23 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees From: Ferris McCormick To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20061030082829.GA20216@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net> References: <20061030082829.GA20216@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-4LX3VqtoMUhJS0vkwnC9" Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:23:22 +0000 Message-Id: <1162214602.20361.7.camel@liasis.inforead.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.1.1 X-Archives-Salt: 66db88ab-1adb-4286-b9e0-f0d9f654a56f X-Archives-Hash: 9db19e2c3086173baaadc7971474d292 --=-4LX3VqtoMUhJS0vkwnC9 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 00:28 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 07:49:22PM -0700, Jason Wever wrote: > > Please triple check what you want to commit and verify that you don't d= o=20 > > any of the following (which are punishable by death): > >=20 > > 1) remove the last ebuild that is keyworded for a given arch, especiall= y > > when resulting in broken dependencies. > >=20 > > 2) remove the last stable ebuild for an architecture > >=20 > > 3) remove the last testing ebuild for an architecture when there is no > > stable ebuild available after the removal >=20 > To generalize on Francesco's email, how long should developers wait for > minority arches to mark stuff stable, after a security bug, and then a > reminder more than 4 months later? 5 months of no response from the > arches says something is wrong on their side. >=20 I might be mistaken, but I believe sparc responds pretty quickly to security bugs, either by taking the requested action or by explaining why the requested action is impossible (i.e., build problems). > I think that usage statistics might point out that there are nobody even > using these specific ebuilds that are proposed for removal. >=20 Regards, --=20 Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc) --=-4LX3VqtoMUhJS0vkwnC9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBFRfzJQa6M3+I///cRAoifAJ9xQipOlApZb2OZdTtXSlfk8iF3egCghsyG X3PEXzJ+CU48I70JUQ+XhxY= =ir69 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-4LX3VqtoMUhJS0vkwnC9-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list