On 2021-10-18 19:07, Michał Górny wrote:
Security team arbitrarily deciding that an architecture is unsupported while otherwise it's supported in Gentoo doesn't change anything. Sure, you can close bugs and pretend that a problem doesn't exist... except that you can't if you can't remove the old version because of keywords.
You won't see me defending the idea of allowing stable architectures without security support (this was before I joined Gentoo and I never liked it). But this is what we have for more than 10 years now. However, this was never an arbitrary decision. It was something between arch teams and security project but in the end it was always the archteam's decision because they are the ones doing the work (like "Sorry, we cannot keep up..." -"Well, that's bad but now we have to deal with that").
Anyway, I think we are losing focus on topic. I am still waiting for Marecki to answer the motivation behind this. And to quote you:
Sure, you can close bugs and pretend that a problem doesn't exist
Sadly, you can say the same for dropping stable keywords (and I think we are not that far away if I understand [1] correctly), not? That's why I asked for the motivation behind this and what people are expecting to become better/what problem will be solved after that change.
We haven't yet talked about the risk of broken deptrees because some tooling will ignore non-stable architectures by default.
[1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/a3c7a6cb7596a5ff9102e4d819a52d9c
-- Regards, Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer fpr: C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
