From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93CFB138334 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:48:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0D504E08D4; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:48:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ed1-f65.google.com (mail-ed1-f65.google.com [209.85.208.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 966C5E08B1 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:48:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-f65.google.com with SMTP id b7-v6so8703471edd.9 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 08:48:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=8jqH4JJxiERmh0itC3JLluEDNM1HtPwCdH68gYs4NlQ=; b=Y+YJr84zk7b4wqgZ7OlSVrdMh5LVdy1gduCcaw5m+l4jaYB+X7KNzzTSNWmuB8tIGC x6AJJvsCIWzRLeQcUgVRSeI/oFvbKOYHYPr8OlAUUIWZs2oje6a0odnpz0Ip6xzQN5Xh +fwKdoDRMkGVA//vh8T1wpoGEXVNd7yW0+y5FfHhycjDjxmrSMTmKYvrYTBR2lnneCSR FP1cgG/2T5XbAwpreXrEYbvKN6brbbGsckPXOwW4tQ93qMICedUqiM8g/w+zBsMosL5a R28XsVLz+6ZMSm7FwyE3HmCSB4HNNLQNQnoSfrB9sX2zpcPAfX+x0ZIAQfpXsvEprnTh cBYw== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfojM5d7VPEOqymQn19vNsoW067B75l/L/8SDJ7Jqz4BKwdu5TKjE lGvO61T0XT2V4P/rMbnpb+/1vfvRJPO3gLOiWgei3l++ X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV60LJuQJGjKK/S084rFpZVU8MtUA2teVXfPLpueS6Mqrh1jTyMSHgaKgmYpb7Bb6fzJ5wbJBrE4UM1PXgXSYahM= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d709:: with SMTP id t9-v6mr3589322edq.231.1539272918721; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 08:48:38 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <673fa7bc-c3f6-9c76-5675-783754ce3e9a@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <673fa7bc-c3f6-9c76-5675-783754ce3e9a@gentoo.org> From: Alec Warner Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:48:26 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] net-dns/dnssec-root: Blind stable on arm, critical bug 667774 To: Gentoo Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000887a0c0577f5e7a1" X-Archives-Salt: 6cfc4f38-6c00-4707-8875-f8a354dfbab2 X-Archives-Hash: 7cf4d684e75b99030236db36bb1dd406 --000000000000887a0c0577f5e7a1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 11:10 AM Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > Let me quote > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=3Df6f6bb91b7f134a121= ef9fa1dd504b9ca52c5aa8 > : > This thread is missing a bunch of context...so I'll try to add it I guess. > > > net-dns/dnssec-root: Blind stable on arm, critical bug 667774 > > > > Note that this is a major fail for a stable architecture. > > In addition, all arm devboxes are currently offline. > > > > Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/667774 > > Signed-off-by: Andreas K. H=C3=BCttel > > Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.49, Repoman-2.3.11 > > ...and now let's all sit down and enjoy how stable ARM users lose access > to the Internet and have to figure out how to deactivate DNSSEC to get > back online. ;] > I can't tell if the complaint is that: 1) Someone blind-stabled something on arm and it broke (doesn't build?) 2) The arm team failed to mark a package stable before a hard deadline (DNSSEC key rotation) I presume its the latter? Whats the impact? All DNS, or only DNSSEC validated entries? > Maybe it is time to destabilize ARM on Gentoo to stop the impression > that we really support ARM. > I'm not really sure I buy this as an argument; but then again I think there is a general expectation that Gentoo users using 'are paying attention'[0] so stable arm users would have unmasked the ~arch version of the keys long before today. [0] Particularly people using DNSSEC...but maybe I'm just a curmudgeon. > > > -- > Regards, > Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer > C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 > > --000000000000887a0c0577f5e7a1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Oct 11= , 2018 at 11:10 AM Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@gentoo.org> wrote:
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=3Df6f6bb91= b7f134a121ef9fa1dd504b9ca52c5aa8:

T= his thread is missing a bunch of context...so I'll try to add it I gues= s.
=C2=A0

> net-dns/dnssec-root: Blind stable on arm, critical bug 667774
>
> Note that this is a major fail for a stable architecture.
> In addition, all arm devboxes are currently offline.
>
> Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/667774
> Signed-off-by: Andreas K. H=C3=BCttel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
> Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.49, Repoman-2.3.11

...and now let's all sit down and enjoy how stable ARM users lose acces= s
to the Internet and have to figure out how to deactivate DNSSEC to get
back online. ;]

I can't tell if the= complaint is that:

1) Someone blind-stabled somet= hing on arm and it broke (doesn't build?)
2) The arm team fai= led to mark a package stable before a hard deadline (DNSSEC key rotation)

I presume its the latter? Whats the impact? All DNS= , or only DNSSEC validated entries?


Maybe it is time to destabilize ARM on Gentoo to stop the impression
that we really support ARM.

I'm not= really sure I buy this as an argument; but then again I think there is a g= eneral expectation that Gentoo users using 'are paying attention'[0= ] so stable arm users would have unmasked the ~arch version of the keys lon= g before today.

[0] Particularly people using DNSS= EC...but maybe I'm just a curmudgeon.
=C2=A0


--
Regards,
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5

--000000000000887a0c0577f5e7a1--