From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-64462-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F3BF138247
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 19:08:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9B8C8E0BFC;
	Sat, 18 Jan 2014 19:08:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC805E0B61
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 19:08:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.33] (182.Red-2-137-18.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [2.137.18.182])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: pacho)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2ED6233F978;
	Sat, 18 Jan 2014 19:08:23 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1390072101.24148.110.camel@belkin5>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Regarding long delays on GLSA generation
From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Cc: security@gentoo.org
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 20:08:21 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20140118185711.CFA13E0C62@pigeon.gentoo.org>
References: <20140118185711.CFA13E0C62@pigeon.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.5 
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Archives-Salt: 10615799-b2a1-46e3-bfad-9015d4ecc001
X-Archives-Hash: badc136a4f3d5ffde2a758acb6ae8687

El sáb, 18-01-2014 a las 13:57 -0500, Chris Reffett escribió:
[...]
> We prefer that the maintainers do the drop in case there's some
> dependency situation we're not aware of, but we will drop if
> maintainers are unresponsive.
> 
[...] 
> By all means, maintainer should be the one to call for the stable.
> It's your package, I cannot think of any situation where security
> would not want the maintainer to do that.

OK, will take care of it in the future

Thanks!