Re: [gentoo-kernel] vanilla-kernel sources should not be marked stable for obsolete versions

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 02:02:59AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 07:58:01 -0700
> Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > I bumped the vanilla-kernel sources yesterday, and deleted some
> > obsolete, and known-insecure versions at the same time (i.e. the 3.7
> > and 3.8 ebuilds.)
> 
> Thank you for keeping an eye on them; I got into a habit of only
> bumping gentoo-sources, so I don't always remind the to do vanilla,
> I'll do my best to add it to the habbit in the future.
> 
> > They were added back because they were the last releases marked
> > "stable" for some arches.
> 
> Yes, this is actively being checked to avoid that there is no stable
> kernel present; if you don't want that to happen then you should make
> an individual arrangement with the arch teams, such that they are aware
> that the stabilization of this package is individually arranged.
> 
> Since ago does stabilizations for multiple arches, is involved in
> security bugs and did the restore on this particular package; I have
> added him to CC so he is aware of this discussion going on.
> 
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.kernel/697
> 
> > In thinking about this, that's totally wrong.  Either all of these
> > ebuilds are marked stable, or none are.  And we should really NEVER
> > have known buggy ebuilds marked stable for the vanilla kernels, as
> > that's just dangerous on many different levels.
> > 
> > So, should I just mark these always stable, or never stable?  I don't
> > think we should mix the two, as the previous versions are always known
> > buggy, and have problems, and shouldn't be used.
> 
> I think it may be a nice idea to have vanilla-sources reflect upstream;
> that is, always stable and drop versions which are not.

Great!  But as only the latest version released is "stable", that's all
that should stick around, right?

> If possible we could script it to keep the package unstable the first X
> days it is in Portage to keep the stabilization effect in place; that
> way Gentoo users are unaffected if something goes wrong the day after
> you push a patch, I assume not, but you never know.

If something goes "wrong" the day after I push a update, I push a new
one fixing the problem, so this shouldn't be an issue, right?

And as these are coming out about 1-2 a week, the timeout before the
arch teams could get around to marking things stable seems like a lot of
work, for something that isn't really needed at all.

thanks,

greg k-h