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[1] security-support on scc.d.o for tier-2 arches or are you only > ranting?
Because of [1], because they said they will drop security on tier-2 arches and that porters should be left to fend by themselves, did they not ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]