From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8E81381F3 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:58:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 44AFCE0EBE; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:58:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rrzmta2.uni-regensburg.de (rrzmta2.uni-regensburg.de [194.94.155.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CA36E0EBD for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:58:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rrzmta2.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E824441CB for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 17:58:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from kailua.localnet (pc1011302446.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.96.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: hua59129) by rrzmta2.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81CE2442AA for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 17:58:10 +0200 (CEST) From: "Andreas K. Huettel" To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-09-10 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 17:57:34 +0200 Message-ID: <1642635.ALGgL2Qxou@kailua> User-Agent: KMail/4.11 (Linux/3.8.13-gentoo; KDE/4.11.0; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20130829153413.GB3432@shimane.bonyari.local> References: <21020.30575.805569.383992@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20130829153413.GB3432@shimane.bonyari.local> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Archives-Salt: 8cbb3bca-5418-4c73-9668-898b22adc44a X-Archives-Hash: ee3d68b161fa7863275e1ecc57e3df72 > > > Is this the only motivation? Drop all the effort that has been put into > > > stabilization work on minor arches just for some impatient maintainers? > > > > > > Keywording/Stabilization is a process we all agreed on joining, so live > > > with it. > > > > Minor arches holding up GLSAs and removal of vulnerable stable ebuilds > > for 3 months or more is *not* acceptable, and not something I agreed > > to when joining... > > > > If they can't even do security stabilizations in a reasonable > > timeframe, they have no business being considered stable arches. > > I think this is a good point but again needs to be defined somewhere > besides comments on a ML. If an ARCH is not able to respond to a GLSA > within a reasonable timeframe due to lack of developer resources, then it > shouldn't be offically supported by Gentoo Linux. The braindead thing is that the GLSA is only going out after all arches have stabilized. Meaning, the slowest arch in practice blocks the GLSA process. -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer kde, sci, arm, tex, printing