Hello again, That you split this off caused me to miss your message.
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) <klond...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Hi! > > The gentoo-dev list is not the right place to keep up discussion on why > or how the hardened-sources will be removed. Not this thread which is > about the news item. > Discussing the validity of the news item seems topical. > Most packages just get masked and removed in 30 days for example without > sending a news item just an e-mail to gentoo-dev-announce. The only > reason why we are sending it is because most Gentoo Hardened users were > using the hardened-sources and deserve a heads-up as to what will happen > to them and what can they do after (as there will be no clear and simple > upgrade path with similar features). > > Please do send further answers to gentoo-hardened which is the porject's > mailing list. > At this point I am following up here because the issue is time sensitive. > El 18/08/17 a las 02:59, R0b0t1 escribió: >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera >> (klondike) <klond...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> El 15/08/17 a las 17:50, R0b0t1 escribió: >>>> Where was this decision discussed? >>> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-hardened/message/62ebc2e26d91e8f079197c2c83788cff >>> >>> And many other threads in that list for example, those are just blueness >>> (the package maintainer) conclussions. >>>> The last available kernel is >>>> apparently receiving long term support, there may not be any reason to >>>> remove it. >>> Not by the original upstream, and definitively not in the way in which >>> Grsec used to (manually cherrypicking security related commits and not >>> just those marked as security related). >>> >> All blueness says in that is that he can't personally support the >> patches. That's fine, and nobody that I know of ever expected him to >> do that. However, until they are unfixably broken, why remove them? >> Keeping them until a suitable replacement is available seems like the >> best option available. >> There's no criteria in that notice for when they would be removed. >> What criteria was used to decide they are generating useless work and >> should be removed? > They are already unfixably broken. They are affected by stack clash > (when using certain obscure configs but nonetheless). They are to all > effects unmaintained (as in upstream not publishing patches we can > provide to you). And I'd rather not look at what other fixes came in the > 4.9 tree since then that I have missed. They are not unfixably broken for most users. I have no doubt that there are stable packages in existence with bugs open against them. Likewise there are no doubt unmaintained packages in existence. >>> Although minipli's kernel patches are good and I personally recommend >>> them, this is not something the Gentoo Hardened team will do. Also they >>> probably should be renamed something else. >> I'm not sure anyone is asking the hardened team to do anything, except >> for people on the hardened team who want to remove the patches. > Then please address blueness about this (on the aforementioned thread) > and not me. I'm just the messenger who was asked to deliver the news. I suppose I will rejoin the hardened mailing list. However, all I was doing was asking you for explanations. I feel you should be able to address my concerns as if you can't explain why you are doing what you are doing, then why are you doing it? >>>> If it isn't broken and creating work yet I'm not sure why >>>> anyone cares. >>> Go to #gentoo-hardened and see how there is people asking about this >>> again and again :P >>> >> I'm not sure what you mean. There are people asking about it, but that >> doesn't necessarily mean they want it to happen. If something is done >> people are going to discuss it regardless of what it is. > I mean people is asking "what happens with the hardened-sources?" and we > having to answer. Now at least we have a clear path of action announced. Keeping the sources in the tree seems to be an equally valid cause of action. >> Please understand, I don't want to keep an old version of the kernel >> and associated patches around forever, just until a replacement is >> actually found. > There are a few replacements, we aren't just providing an ebuild in the > portage tree for them (except for gentoo-sources, of course). > > If you want to keep the ebuilds and patches I recommend you set up a > personal overlay instead. > If there aren't Gentoo-maintained ebuilds for them, then they are not really an option of the same caliber. R0b0t1.
