Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Pre-GLEP: Security Project

On 2017-03-13 22:47, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > now I'm even more lost. Gentoo Developer quiz does not imply ebuild > repository access, we have current developers in the project without > tree access and they are doing an outstanding job, so depending on the > definition of "full membership"

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Pre-GLEP: Security Project

On 2017-03-13 21:33, Rich Freeman wrote: > [...] > > And this is why I think you are talking past each other. Kristian is > thinking in terms of security being a special project, and Thomas is > thinking in terms of security being a normal project. Both are making > completely reasonable

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Pre-GLEP: Security Project

On 03/13/2017 08:38 PM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > On 2017-03-12 19:35, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >>> Why do Security Project members need to be ebuild devs? >>> Non ebuild developers can contribute by producing GLSAs, >>> for example. >> >> Where is that requirement stated? > > I agree with

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCHES] portage.checksum hacking, pt. 4

W dniu 12.03.2017, nie o godzinie 21∶31 -0700, użytkownik Zac Medico napisał: > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Here's a huge batch of patches for portage.checksum and relevant stuff. > > It's not a complete rewrite as I have originally

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Pre-GLEP: Security Project

On Monday, March 13, 2017 4:33:54 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > Looks like we are disagreeing about the role of a project lead. > > > > The primary goal of any Gentoo project is to group people working > > towards

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Pre-GLEP: Security Project

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > Looks like we are disagreeing about the role of a project lead. > > The primary goal of any Gentoo project is to group people working > towards the same goal(s) in small, manageable groups. It shouldn't need > a

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Pre-GLEP: Security Project

On 2017-03-12 19:35, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> Why do Security Project members need to be ebuild devs? >> Non ebuild developers can contribute by producing GLSAs, >> for example. > > Where is that requirement stated? I agree with Roy. That's also my reading of > * The applicant must have

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Pre-GLEP: Security Project

On 2017-03-12 23:53, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 03/11/2017 11:23 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> While the Deputy may be assigned, this still gives all power to >> single hands. Maybe it will be better to establish something like >> the Security Project Council (SPC)? E.g. three project

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Pre-GLEP: Security Project

Hi, I am quoting : > == Abstract == > This GLEP outlines the purpose, responsibilities and abilities of the > Gentoo Security Project. > > == Motivation == > This GLEP aims to document the processes of the Security Project and > enpowering the

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] portage.checksum: Store supported hash types in a frozenset

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Copy the list of supported hash types (hashfunc_map dict) into > a frozenset to support efficient access in the public API. > --- > pym/portage/checksum.py | 25 ++--- > 1 file changed, 14

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] portage.checksum: Store supported hash types in a frozenset

Copy the list of supported hash types (hashfunc_map dict) into a frozenset to support efficient access in the public API. --- pym/portage/checksum.py | 25 ++--- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/pym/portage/checksum.py b/pym/portage/checksum.py

Re: [gentoo-dev] [patch] golang-vcs-snapshot.eclass: add vendoring of external dependencies

This was committed last night. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature