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 1GeXtD-00082g-6T for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:13:23 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k9UECU1t015749; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:12:30 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 k9UEA7Wm026598 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:10:07 GMT Received: from iglu.bnet.local (d070009.adsl.hansenet.de [80.171.70.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D87AF64E5D for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:09:59 +0000 (UTC) From: Carsten Lohrke To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:09:49 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <20061030082829.GA20216@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net> <1162214602.20361.7.camel@liasis.inforead.com> In-Reply-To: <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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart31419236.niOYEorAXs"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200610301509.55716.carlo@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 0d45c252-8c7f-4b44-b81a-873c7ab4b128 X-Archives-Hash: 8c7b110f64608b529fca9a5e37d88135 --nextPart31419236.niOYEorAXs Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 30 October 2006 14:23, Ferris McCormick wrote: > 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). Yes, the Sparc team is rather quick - even among security-wise supported=20 architectures. None of the archs cc'ed to the bug in question is=20 security-wise supported. We communicate this is our vulnerability policy=C2= =B9=20 page - a bit too hidden for my taste. Carsten [1] http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/vulnerability-policy.xml --nextPart31419236.niOYEorAXs Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBFRgezVwbzmvGLSW8RAsuWAKChEJ5CqIJF0aDrXuf8Hp0ARdFpQACfZFu5 17kXqH7AWVoRVfQQApJRtYk= =uRac -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart31419236.niOYEorAXs-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list