Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-07 Thread Hanno Böck
On Sat, 04 Jan 2020 19:41:21 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > On Sat, 2020-01-04 at 08:38 +0100, Hanno Böck wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 15:48:54 +0100 > > Toralf Förster wrote: > > > > > # Restrict potential illegal access via links > > > # > > > fs.protected_hardlinks = 1 > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-05 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 1/4/20 2:13 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > > Bad idea. If you wonder why: eshowkw dev-lang/rust. > Or consider that every rust package in Gentoo bundles hundreds of libraries. We'd be fixing one security issue by introducing 10x more. Not that rewriting it in rust would fix anything; writing

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-05 Thread Roy Bamford
On 2020.01.04 13:43, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > On 2020-01-04 14:08, Roy Bamford wrote: > > emerge -1 vanilla-sources > > eselect kernel ... > > genkernel all > > ... > > Please tell user to do > > genkernel --kernel-config=/proc/config.gz all > > by default which will give them a better

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 3:13 PM Christopher Head wrote: > > > Of course this would be a bad argument if V-S were lagging behind upstream > significantly, and it’s a much better argument for packages that come with > expectations of security team support than those that don’t, but it is >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-04 Thread Christopher Head
On January 4, 2020 4:54:07 AM PST, Rich Freeman wrote: > >Uh, all it does is install kernel sources. They're useless unless you >build a kernel using them. > >Apparently git and tar are too complicated for Gentoo users, but >managing symlinks, using make, managing a bootloader, dealing with the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-04 Thread Rolf Eike Beer
Am Samstag, 4. Januar 2020, 19:41:05 CET schrieb William Hubbs: > On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 09:55:31AM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 1/3/20 9:52 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > > But here we are. Do we make OpenRC Linux-only and steal the fix from > > > systemd? Or pretend to support other

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-04 Thread Michał Górny
On Sat, 2020-01-04 at 12:41 -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 09:55:31AM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 1/3/20 9:52 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > > But here we are. Do we make OpenRC Linux-only and steal the fix from > > > systemd? Or pretend to support other operating

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-04 Thread William Hubbs
On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 09:55:31AM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 1/3/20 9:52 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > > > But here we are. Do we make OpenRC Linux-only and steal the fix from > > systemd? Or pretend to support other operating systems, but leave them > > insecure? > > > > Or the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-04 Thread Michał Górny
On Sat, 2020-01-04 at 08:38 +0100, Hanno Böck wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 15:48:54 +0100 > Toralf Förster wrote: > > > # Restrict potential illegal access via links > > # > > fs.protected_hardlinks = 1 > > fs.protected_symlinks = 1 > > Given the issues with openrc: > Wouldn't it be a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-04 Thread William Hubbs
On Sat, Jan 04, 2020 at 08:38:59AM +0100, Hanno Böck wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 15:48:54 +0100 > Toralf Förster wrote: > > > # Restrict potential illegal access via links > > # > > fs.protected_hardlinks = 1 > > fs.protected_symlinks = 1 > > Given the issues with openrc: > Wouldn't it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-04 Thread Thomas Deutschmann
On 2020-01-04 12:01, Rich Freeman wrote: > Packages without security support should be masked. Really I don't > see the point of even having this in the repo. THIS! +infinite And arches without security support in general can't have stable keywords. But this is a dream. :-/ -- Regards,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-04 Thread Thomas Deutschmann
On 2020-01-04 14:08, Roy Bamford wrote: > emerge -1 vanilla-sources > eselect kernel ... > genkernel all > ... Please tell user to do genkernel --kernel-config=/proc/config.gz all by default which will give them a better experience because new kernel will be build based on kernel configuration

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-04 Thread Roy Bamford
On 2020.01.04 12:54, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 6:42 AM Roy Bamford > wrote: [snip] > > Apparently git and tar are too complicated for Gentoo users, but > managing symlinks, using make, managing a bootloader, dealing with the > kernel's configuration system, and so on are just

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 6:42 AM Roy Bamford wrote: > > On 2020.01.04 11:01, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > Is there some reason that we should keep vanilla sources despite not > > getting security handling? > > > > Gentoo had this discussion before. The outcome was that > vanilla-sources is just as

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-04 Thread Roy Bamford
On 2020.01.04 11:01, Rich Freeman wrote: > > Is there some reason that we should keep vanilla sources despite not > getting security handling? > > -- > Rich > Rich, Gentoo had this discussion before. The outcome was that vanilla-sources is just as Linus intended. If Gentoo did anything to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-04 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 11:28 AM Aaron Bauman wrote: > On January 3, 2020 9:55:31 AM EST, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >On 1/3/20 9:52 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> > >> But here we are. Do we make OpenRC Linux-only and steal the fix from > >> systemd? Or pretend to support other operating

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-03 Thread Hanno Böck
On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 15:48:54 +0100 Toralf Förster wrote: > # Restrict potential illegal access via links > # > fs.protected_hardlinks = 1 > fs.protected_symlinks = 1 Given the issues with openrc: Wouldn't it be a good idea to add these by default to Gentoo's sysctl.conf in baselayout?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-03 Thread Michael 'veremitz' Everitt
On 03/01/20 14:48, Toralf Förster wrote: > On 1/3/20 3:46 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> If OpenRC contains a vulnerability wouldn't it make more sense to set >> this as part of OpenRC, > Indeed. > > Furthermore there's a nifty page >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-03 Thread Aaron Bauman
On January 3, 2020 9:55:31 AM EST, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >On 1/3/20 9:52 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> >> But here we are. Do we make OpenRC Linux-only and steal the fix from >> systemd? Or pretend to support other operating systems, but leave >them >> insecure? >> > >Or the gripping

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-03 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 1/3/20 9:52 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > But here we are. Do we make OpenRC Linux-only and steal the fix from > systemd? Or pretend to support other operating systems, but leave them > insecure? > Or the gripping hand: rewrite opentmpfiles in C, so that it's only as insecure as checkpath.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-03 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 1/3/20 9:46 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > ... > > In any case this seems more like an OpenRC issue than a Gentoo issue. > It's a specification issue. There's no way to implement tmpfiles safely on a POSIX system, and opentmpfiles shouldn't exist if OpenRC wants to work on anything other than

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-03 Thread Toralf Förster
On 1/3/20 3:46 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > If OpenRC contains a vulnerability wouldn't it make more sense to set > this as part of OpenRC, Indeed. Furthermore there's a nifty page https://kernsec.org/wiki/index.php/Kernel_Self_Protection_Project/Recommended_Settings which yields for me to this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-03 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 9:41 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 1/3/20 9:40 AM, Toralf Förster wrote: > > On 1/3/20 3:37 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> The gentoo-sources aren't 100% safe either, but the exploitable scenario > >> is less common thanks to fs.protected_{hardlinks,symlinks}=1. > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-03 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 1/3/20 9:40 AM, Toralf Förster wrote: > On 1/3/20 3:37 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> The gentoo-sources aren't 100% safe either, but the exploitable scenario >> is less common thanks to fs.protected_{hardlinks,symlinks}=1. > > But this can be easily achieved w/o installing gentoo-sources, or?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-03 Thread Toralf Förster
On 1/3/20 3:37 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > The gentoo-sources aren't 100% safe either, but the exploitable scenario > is less common thanks to fs.protected_{hardlinks,symlinks}=1. But this can be easily achieved w/o installing gentoo-sources, or? -- Toralf PGP 23217DA7 9B888F45

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources

2020-01-03 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 1/2/20 6:35 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > > I only run vanilla-sources since there are still lot of cache corruption > problems in hppa kernels, or whatever makes them flaky. The vanilla-sources are unsafe to use on Gentoo. Many services have stupid-easy root exploits, since we install

Re: [gentoo-dev] vanilla-sources broken

2018-01-05 Thread Nicolas Bock
On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 11:47:51PM +0900, Alice Ferrazzi wrote: On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 11:08 PM, Nicolas Bock wrote: Hi, currently vanilla-sources are broken, but there is an upstream patch that fixes it (appended at the end). I know that vanilla-sources are supposed

Re: [gentoo-dev] vanilla-sources broken

2018-01-05 Thread Alice Ferrazzi
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 11:08 PM, Nicolas Bock wrote: > Hi, > > currently vanilla-sources are broken, but there is an upstream patch that > fixes it (appended at the end). I know that vanilla-sources are supposed to > be vanilla, but it would help if we added this patch

[gentoo-dev] vanilla-sources broken

2018-01-05 Thread Nicolas Bock
Hi, currently vanilla-sources are broken, but there is an upstream patch that fixes it (appended at the end). I know that vanilla-sources are supposed to be vanilla, but it would help if we added this patch until upstream backports it. Any thoughts? Best, Nick From

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-08-09 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 15:29:06 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:43:09AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:50:32AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote: I think this supports the argument that the better kernel is always the one with the most

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-08-09 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 01:44:12 +0200 Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: I think this supports the argument that the better kernel is always the one with the most fixes. That's what us kernel developers have been saying for 10+ years, nice to see it's finally getting some traction :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-08-09 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 15:32:45 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:37:32AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:44:34 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: I am not going to impose an additional burden on developers to get their patches into

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-08-09 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 15:32:45 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:37:32AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: And what about all of the fixes I merge in, that _are_ really security fixes, yet we do not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-08-09 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 06:38:56 -0400 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: My sense is that Greg is using the term security bugs to refer to implementation errors that could be exploited to obtain unintended access to a system. Using this definition, any bug could be a security bug, and figuring

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-08-09 Thread Greg KH
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 03:28:54PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 06:38:56 -0400 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: My sense is that Greg is using the term security bugs to refer to implementation errors that could be exploited to obtain unintended access to a system.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-08-09 Thread Greg KH
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 10:34:58AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 15:32:45 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:37:32AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:44:34 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: I am not going to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-08-09 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 12:30:42 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: ... Just read the commits to find out what is resolved, ... ... Because it's extra work that is pointless. ... No classification is done if there is no single command to obtain them. I don't understand what you mean

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-08-09 Thread Greg KH
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:46:43PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 12:30:42 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: ... Just read the commits to find out what is resolved, ... ... Because it's extra work that is pointless. ... No classification is done if there is no

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-08-08 Thread Greg KH
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:43:09AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 16:19:43 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:50:32AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote: Greg KH wrote: See above for why it is not easy at all, and, why even if we do know some

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-08-08 Thread Greg KH
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:37:32AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:44:34 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 11:37:21AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: Some kind of annotation with tags would make this kind of thing easy; I'm not saying it is your

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-08-08 Thread Peter Stuge
Greg KH wrote: See above for why it is not easy at all, and, why even if we do know some fixes are security ones, we would not tag them as such anyway. I think this supports the argument that the better kernel is always the one with the most fixes. That's what us kernel developers

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-08-07 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:09:11 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: Please tell me exactly how you are going to evaluate which fixes I make are security fixes, and you know which to pick and choose from. Some kind of annotation with tags would make this kind of thing easy; I'm not saying it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-08-07 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 23:17:36 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: This thread derailed as usual. The kernel team made a decision. Perhaps it did, perhaps it didn't; I do not intend to discuss this but to rather clarify the decision that was made, as a matter of support. The reason

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-08-07 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:32:39 +0200 Manuel Rüger mr...@gentoo.org wrote: On 07/27/2013 03:28 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: On 27/07/13 10:56, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: How about dropping vanilla-sources and adding a vanilla USE flag to gentoo-sources? Then we might as well just

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-08-07 Thread Greg KH
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 11:37:21AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:09:11 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: Please tell me exactly how you are going to evaluate which fixes I make are security fixes, and you know which to pick and choose from. Some kind of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-08-07 Thread Peter Stuge
Greg KH wrote: See above for why it is not easy at all, and, why even if we do know some fixes are security ones, we would not tag them as such anyway. I think this supports the argument that the better kernel is always the one with the most fixes. Rather than separating bug fixes from

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-08-07 Thread Greg KH
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:50:32AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote: Greg KH wrote: See above for why it is not easy at all, and, why even if we do know some fixes are security ones, we would not tag them as such anyway. I think this supports the argument that the better kernel is always the one

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-08-07 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 16:19:43 -0700 Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:50:32AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote: Greg KH wrote: See above for why it is not easy at all, and, why even if we do know some fixes are security ones, we would not tag them as such anyway.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-29 Thread Alexander Berntsen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 27/07/13 15:32, Manuel Rüger wrote: On 07/27/2013 03:28 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: Then we might as well just have a Linux package with a bunch of USE flags -- gentoo, hardened, libre, tuxonice, ck, etc. This is not a good idea, I'd like

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-27 Thread Sergey Popov
24.07.2013 22:16, Peter Stuge пишет: It seems that for this package Gentoo QA can not realistically add any value to this package, hence my suggestion not to pretend that they can, and just remove the distinction between ~arch and arch for v-s, and make the latest version available to users by

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-27 Thread Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Mike Pagano schrieb: Team members working alongside upstream (and downstream) developer Greg k-h have decided to no longer request stabilization of the vanilla sources kernel. How about dropping vanilla-sources and adding a vanilla USE flag to gentoo-sources? Best regards, Chí-Thanh

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-27 Thread Alexander Berntsen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 27/07/13 10:56, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: How about dropping vanilla-sources and adding a vanilla USE flag to gentoo-sources? Then we might as well just have a Linux package with a bunch of USE flags -- gentoo, hardened, libre,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-27 Thread Manuel Rüger
On 07/27/2013 03:28 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: On 27/07/13 10:56, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: How about dropping vanilla-sources and adding a vanilla USE flag to gentoo-sources? Then we might as well just have a Linux package with a bunch of USE flags -- gentoo, hardened, libre,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org wrote: Mike Pagano schrieb: Team members working alongside upstream (and downstream) developer Greg k-h have decided to no longer request stabilization of the vanilla sources kernel. How about dropping

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-27 Thread Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alexander Berntsen schrieb: On 27/07/13 10:56, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: How about dropping vanilla-sources and adding a vanilla USE flag to gentoo-sources? Then we might as well just have a Linux package with a bunch of USE flags --

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-27 Thread Mike Pagano
On Saturday, July 27, 2013 09:58:08 AM Rich Freeman wrote: Unless it were stable-masked it would create the exact same problem. ^^ This -- Mike Pagano Gentoo Developer - Kernel Project E-Mail : mpag...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : EEE2 601D 0763 B60F 848C 9E14 3C33 C650 B576 E4E3 Public

[gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Mike Pagano
tl;dr Summary Team members working alongside upstream (and downstream) developer Greg k-h have decided to no longer request stabilization of the vanilla sources kernel. Team members and arch teams (understandably) are unable to keep up with the 1-2 weekly kernel releases, and therefore will

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Alex Xu
On 24/07/13 01:37 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: Mike Pagano wrote: Team members working alongside upstream (and downstream) developer Greg k-h have decided to no longer request stabilization of the vanilla sources kernel. Team members and arch teams (understandably) are unable to keep up with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Alex Xu alex_y...@yahoo.ca wrote: As has been stated, this implies that Gentoo QA has tested the packages and found them to be reasonably safe for use. ++ Stable should mean something, and those who understand the tradeoffs can accept unstable packages where

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Peter Stuge
Mike Pagano wrote: Team members working alongside upstream (and downstream) developer Greg k-h have decided to no longer request stabilization of the vanilla sources kernel. Team members and arch teams (understandably) are unable to keep up with the 1-2 weekly kernel releases, and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Peter Stuge
Alex Xu wrote: Maybe it would make sense to automatically stabilize every v-s kernel right away? As has been stated, this implies that Gentoo QA has tested the packages and found them to be reasonably safe for use. .. Although stable kernels *have* been tested by many people before use,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Peter Stuge
Rich Freeman wrote: As has been stated, this implies that Gentoo QA has tested the packages and found them to be reasonably safe for use. ++ While good in theory, it seems that newer v-s are actually more reasonably safe than any g-s. Stable should mean something For users, stable

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Alex Xu
On 24/07/13 01:49 PM, Peter Stuge wrote: Alex Xu wrote: Maybe it would make sense to automatically stabilize every v-s kernel right away? As has been stated, this implies that Gentoo QA has tested the packages and found them to be reasonably safe for use. .. Although stable kernels *have*

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Peter Stuge
Alex Xu wrote: Maybe it would make sense to automatically stabilize every v-s kernel right away? As has been stated, this implies that Gentoo QA has tested the packages and found them to be reasonably safe for use. .. Although stable kernels *have* been tested by many people before

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Rich Freeman wrote: Stable should mean something For users, stable means older in practice. Always did, always will. If you don't like stable, then don't run stable. Don't change the meaning of stable, however, for those who

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Peter Stuge
Rich Freeman wrote: Stable should mean something For users, stable means older in practice. Always did, always will. Don't change the meaning of stable, however, for those who find it useful. This is a good point, but the original post suggested to me that actually every new release of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Ben Kohler
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: To be clear: I am not suggesting to change the meaning of stable, I am suggesting that the latest available upstream kernel should perhaps be the default for Gentoo users. How to make that happen is less important, the idea

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Peter Stuge
Ben Kohler wrote: I am suggesting that the latest available upstream kernel should perhaps be the default for Gentoo users. You seem to be ignoring the regressions that often come with new kernel releases, the very common breakage caused in stable genkernel all, and other various

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 19:54:10 +0200 Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Rich Freeman wrote: As has been stated, this implies that Gentoo QA has tested the packages and found them to be reasonably safe for use. ++ While good in theory, it seems that newer v-s are actually more

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:01:30 +0200 Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: I am suggesting that the latest available upstream kernel should perhaps be the default for Gentoo users. See my previous e-mail; if you're willing to go through with this suggestion, then please back that up with sufficient

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Ben Kohler wrote: I am suggesting that the latest available upstream kernel should perhaps be the default for Gentoo users. You seem to be ignoring the regressions that often come with new kernel releases, the very common

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:15:15 +0200 Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Ben Kohler wrote: I am suggesting that the latest available upstream kernel should perhaps be the default for Gentoo users. You seem to be ignoring the regressions that often come with new kernel releases, the very

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:40:38 -0400 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: Also, not all fixes are equal. The ones that are the biggest concern are security fixes. Why? Which is worse: a local denial of service attack when every user on your box has sudo access anyway, or a random data corruption

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:16:59 +0200 Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Alex Xu wrote: Maybe it would make sense to automatically stabilize every v-s kernel right away? As has been stated, this implies that Gentoo QA has tested the packages and found them to be reasonably safe for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Markos Chandras
On 24 July 2013 21:59, Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:16:59 +0200 Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Alex Xu wrote: Maybe it would make sense to automatically stabilize every v-s kernel right away? As has been stated, this implies that Gentoo QA has

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Greg KH
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 04:40:38PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: Also, not all fixes are equal. The ones that are the biggest concern are security fixes. How do you _know_ which fixes are security fixes? If you tell me that the kernel has a new exploit 2x/week then I'll start to wonder when

Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

2013-07-24 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 04:40:38PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: It just seems like we should be able to get by without a semiweekly kernel upgrade on our stable branch. You want me to slow down and do releases in larger chunks