Mailing List Archive

On Saturday 31 May 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> ive made this shift in profiles.desc:
> sed -ir '/^(arm|s390|sh)/s:stable:dev:' profiles.desc
> if/when we get dedicated arch maintainers, they can think about shifting
> back

for the confused ... you should still be adding these arches for stable
requests and you should not be dropping their keywords
-mike

On Saturday 31 May 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > ive made this shift in profiles.desc:
> > sed -ir '/^(arm|s390|sh)/s:stable:dev:' profiles.desc
> > if/when we get dedicated arch maintainers, they can think about
> > shifting back
>
> for the confused ... you should still be adding these arches for
> stable requests and you should not be dropping their keywords
> -mike

Just for the extra dense among us, does this mean that when a security
bug such as 216850[1] gets closed with no response from those arches,
that in such cases we are allowed punt the affected ebuild, even though
it will break your stable?

[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/216850

--
/PA

Hi,

Peter Alfredsen <loki_val@gentoo.org>:
> Just for the extra dense among us, does this mean that when a
> security bug such as 216850[1] gets closed with no response from
> those arches, that in such cases we are allowed punt the affected
> ebuild, even though it will break your stable?

No.

V-Li

--
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/>