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 1GevsX-0006yb-9C for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:50:18 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k9VFmwQm032085; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:48:58 GMT Received: from ppsw-4.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-4.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.134]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9VFjGBo008310 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:45:16 GMT X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from spb42.christs.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.233.172]:38468 helo=blashyrk) by ppsw-4.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.154]:465) with esmtpsa (LOGIN:spb42) (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1GevnR-00088S-D0 (Exim 4.63) for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org (return-path ); Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:45:04 +0000 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:45:08 +0000 From: Stephen Bennett To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees Message-ID: <20061031154508.2dd9afe8@blashyrk> In-Reply-To: References: <45468ED1.8050107@gentoo.org> <20061031003334.50376630@snowdrop.home> <200610310857.02169.linux@quanteam.info> <20061031150236.7b080211@snowdrop.home> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.5.6 (GTK+ 2.10.6; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "S.P. Bennett" X-Archives-Salt: 50b99486-8391-4aa3-9ba3-7551010389e2 X-Archives-Hash: 2dc570892f4eef4abf6153e8a5c170c4 On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:36:13 +0100 "Stuart Herbert" wrote: > Would it be possible to have some arch team leaders join in this > debate? Atm, it just seems to be bouncing back and forwards between > package maintainers asking questions, and a Gentoo user filling the > void left by the responses from the arch team folks. Having a system that actually works is usually reckoned to be more important than patching minor security holes on architectures that aren't security-supported anyway. On systems that are almost never used in production or in externally visible roles, security bugs are much akin to simple enhancements to a package that already works, and fixing packages that don't work takes precedence. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list