Re: Security Support and other reasoning (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:09:10AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:27:04PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> > On Monday 14 March 2005 14:06, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > There was no comment from the security team about this new plan, we don't
> > > know for sure that this is the problem, we don't even know in detail what
> > > the problems are and how do they relate to the drastic solutions (in france
> > > we would say horse-remedies) proposed here.
> >
> > The problem I - as a system administrator - see is that waiting a week for a
> > security update might be not acceptable.
>
> The alternative is that ALL architectures wait for security updates
> until the tier 2 architectures are ready. Is that acceptable?
I think there is confusion here. It is perfectly reasonable for slower arches
to get security updates later (as long as they get to start working on it at
the same time as the rest of the security team, who has access to embargoed
information), but simply dropping security for the tier2 arches is not
acceptable, and this is what the proposal does. tier2 arches (8 out of 11
arches) get no stable release, no testing, no security updates.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: