Re: Security support for tier-2 (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:22:34PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 17:18, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:12:29AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:54:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > > It is not unstable that I am (most) worried about.
> > > >
> > > > It is the lack of any possibility of a stable release that concerns me.
> > > > Even if the people for a given arch were to build a stable etch, it
> > > > would have no home in Debian, would suffer from being out of the loop
> > > > on security updates, etc.
> > >
> > > Well, we do know the security team needs help. What I'd love to see is
> > > each port have someone on the security team to handle their specific
> > > bugs, binary builds and testing. That might scale better and decrease the
> > > overall load on the team. This is all in line with what seems to be the
> > > central thesis of the proposal: shift more of the core burden to the
> > > porters. Of course, this does demand a lot, but the burden has to go
> > > somewhere, and the people currently carrying large portions of it are
> > > saying they can't do this any more.
> > Notice too that the exact same people whose help is needed are those that
> > are pissed by this proposal, and whose help has been repeteadly rejected in
> > the past.
> Sven, is there a specific reason you believe that the proposers will
> prevent security-support on scc.d.o for tier-2 arches or are you only
Because of , because they said they will drop security on tier-2 arches and
that porters should be left to fend by themselves, did they not ?