Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward
Hi Bunk,
On Mon, 2025-11-03 at 23:59 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2025 at 01:08:06PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > ...
> > I think that shouldn't be on one maintainers decision alone.
> > ...
>
> In addition to that, discussion of relevant topics that would be part
> of
> any normal decision process is also missing.
>
> Like people tend to forget about [1].
> Has the Security team committed to change that in forky?
> Has the Archive Operations Team committed to fixing their part of
> that?
> Is all tooling automatic enough that handling 1k binNMUs per
> architecture as part of a DSA or point release wouldn't cause
> problems?
> Is anyone working on different binNMU version numbering in stable
> releases?
Have we stopped shipping Firefox yet? Or only provide it to users via
snap?
If not, we already seem to be able to provide security support for
Rust-based software in stable. And that for software dealing with
likely more hostile data/attacks than APT.
For ports: they can just use an ancient APT version indefinitely as
they don't have any security support either way...
Fighting bitter rearguard battles by using other teams that haven't
(yet) done work required for more broad Rust support as pawns doesn't
seem too helpful for me, but rather goes into the line of toxic
behavior...
Ansgar
Reply to: