From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JB0Vc-00065M-HG for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 04:19:44 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id m054IDxB024273; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 04:18:13 GMT Received: from mail.twi-31o2.org (c-24-6-168-204.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.6.168.204]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m054EgxL018366 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 04:14:42 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.twi-31o2.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2708A17B99DE for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 04:14:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at twi-31o2.org Received: from mail.twi-31o2.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (gravity.twi-31o2.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pHtnl1fTvZ4C for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 04:14:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.50] (unknown [192.168.1.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.twi-31o2.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4CB217B8046 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 04:14:36 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January From: Chris Gianelloni To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20080104210213.50a99e6b@snowcone> References: <20080101103002.083C4652C4@smtp.gentoo.org> <54551.192.168.2.159.1199365359.squirrel@www.aei-tech.com> <477D75CA.1030003@gentoo.org> <20080104000155.23e056b4@snowcone> <20080104004653.039f488e@snowcone> <20080104012750.63f4f23a@snowcone> <63044.68.54.223.178.1199445791.squirrel@www.aei-tech.com> <20080104210213.50a99e6b@snowcone> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-8ivr2A8FuIz15t5JEU/M" Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:14:10 -0800 Message-Id: <1199506450.7609.23.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> 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 2.12.1 X-Archives-Salt: b5c8e689-5bf5-483b-908d-a52958740518 X-Archives-Hash: 6f68301b9612071df493b833d8501077 --=-8ivr2A8FuIz15t5JEU/M Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 21:02 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > X and Y are pretty much irrelevant. The important factor is Z, the > impact of leaving things the way they are. ...and the idea is to let the Council decide what level of Z is acceptable. Currently, it appears as if the "issue" is maintainers being forced to keep abhorrently old versions of packages, including security-vulnerable packages, simply because a security-unsupported architecture hasn't had time to test/update/whatever. This has been an issue for quite some time. Of course, the impact is debatable, but it seems that we cannot agree ourselves on what is agreeable, so I see this as a point to bring to the Council simply so it can be resolved "once and for all" and things can resume normal operation. I know that I, as an ebuild developer, would be much more comfortable/accepting of having to keep around old versions of packages, if the Council had deemed it to be something "important" enough. No offence to any alternative architectures or their hard-working team members, but there are some times when we have to look at the common good, and forcing maintainers to spend time keeping older ebuilds that are possibly using older ebuild code and other idiosyncrasies versus the current versions for the more mainstream architectures simply might not be worth it for architectures with a very minimal number of users. I've heard some suggestions for removing stable KEYWORDS on arches that aren't security supported. I see this as a possible solution to such issues, since ~arch packages aren't "security-supported" in the sense of GLSA and such, so why not keep arches which aren't security-supported from having stable KEYWORDS? Of course, this is a "global" change which affects multiple architectures, so it should be deferred to the Council. I don't really think it requires a large amount of discussion simply because it is simple to see how it would come to a swift stand-still. The arch teams affected will want nothing to change, the package maintainers will want to make things easier on themselves. This is to be expected. We elect the Council for a reason. Making decisions like this is one of them. Let's let them do their job and follow their leadership. --=20 Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation --=-8ivr2A8FuIz15t5JEU/M Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBHfwQSkT4lNIS36YERAnj0AJ4lL7vjM0x6AbNuHdROhRSFi7ykQgCgqemi kftWMJcqOC5OS2PMlKq7I00= =pxNi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-8ivr2A8FuIz15t5JEU/M-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list