The Debian/Ubuntu SSL bug

Dave Jones wrote:


Something the SuSE guys have done which I'm thinking we should adopt for our
patches (in the kernel at least), is a header at the top of each patch
detailing its upstream status, (and if not upstream, why not).


There has been some recent guidelines related to this that has been
approved.


http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PatchUpstreamStatus

Rahul

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:15:15AM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Something the SuSE guys have done which I'm thinking we should adopt for our
> > patches (in the kernel at least), is a header at the top of each patch
> > detailing its upstream status, (and if not upstream, why not).
>
> A status header for all patches might be a good thing, if....
> we can do it in such a way that we can establish some sort of process
> that periodically reviews the status headers for each patch and uses
> manpower to do the follow-up for older patches or patches without a
> status header.
>
> I would imagine it could be run in a similar way to how the Feature
> Process is run, with a Patch Wrangler (Team) who is(are) deputized to
> seek out maintainers when updates concern patches status are needed.
>
> Did you also intend to draw a line in the sand concerning the age of a
> patch? If a patch is a certain age it automatically needs more
> frequent status updates? Sort of like when you reach a certain age and
> you need to go in for a colonoscopy on a regular basis?

In some cases 'never' will be a valid answer for 'when upstream?'.
Features that got vetoed (hi execshield!), or just distro-centric
changes that upstream doesn't care about.

For anything else, I think patches that survive >1 release should
probably be eyed with suspicion. We're supposed to be "close to upstream"
after all, and if patches are lasting longer than that without good reason,
questions should probably be asked.

Dave

--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 16:44 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> In some cases 'never' will be a valid answer for 'when upstream?'.
> Features that got vetoed (hi execshield!), or just distro-centric
> changes that upstream doesn't care about.
>
> For anything else, I think patches that survive >1 release should
> probably be eyed with suspicion. We're supposed to be "close to upstream"
> after all, and if patches are lasting longer than that without good reason,
> questions should probably be asked.

This sounds like something we could work into the requirements list for
SCM 2.0, something that will allow us to easily identify and audit the
patch sets going into our packages, as well as integrate a signed-off-by
or some such.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote:
> Something the SuSE guys have done which I'm thinking we should adopt for our
> patches (in the kernel at least), is a header at the top of each patch
> detailing its upstream status, (and if not upstream, why not).

+1

Russell

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

Wed May 14 08:30:01 2008
Return-path: <ubuntu-users-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com>
Envelope-to: tom@linux-archive.org
Delivery-date: Wed, 14 May 2008 07:57:42 +0300
Received: from chlorine.canonical.com ([91.189.94.204])
by s2.java-tips.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68)
(envelope-from <ubuntu-users-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com>)
id 1Jw93e-00026u-Gw
for tom@linux-archive.org; Wed, 14 May 2008 07:57:42 +0300
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=chlorine.canonical.com)
by chlorine.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <ubuntu-users-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com>)
id 1Jw92I-0007Pz-MI; Wed, 14 May 2008 05:56:18 +0100
Received: from [70.169.167.212] (helo=fizban.cmosnetworks.com)
by chlorine.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <microman@cmosnetworks.com>) id 1Jw92F-0007PG-SK
for ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com; Wed, 14 May 2008 05:56:16 +0100
Received: from [172.16.0.254] (unknown [172.16.0.254])
by fizban.cmosnetworks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9F7C4657C
for <ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com>;
Wed, 14 May 2008 00:56:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <482A70EC.9020207@cmosnetworks.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 00:56:12 -0400
From: =?UTF-8?B?IlRlcnJlbGwgUHJ1ZMOpIEpyLiI=?=
<microman@cmosnetworks.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080410)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Ubuntu user technical support,
not for general discussions" <ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com>
Subject: Re: Debian or Ubuntu?
References: <20080509163345.41022214C47@tenant.net> <20080512092800.681556aa@moses.SGL.GROUP> <482879F5.5020005@gmail.com>
<482929BA.5060000@cmosnetworks.com>
<20080513093514.427ac76d@moses.SGL.GROUP>
In-Reply-To: <20080513093514.427ac76d@moses.SGL.GROUP>
X-BeenThere: ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "Ubuntu user technical support,
not for general discussions" <ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com>
List-Id: "Ubuntu user technical support,
not for general discussions" <ubuntu-users.lists.ubuntu.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users>,
<mailto:ubuntu-users-request@lists.ubuntu.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users>
List-Post: <mailto:ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com>
List-Help: <mailto:ubuntu-users-request@lists.ubuntu.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users>,
<mailto:ubuntu-users-request@lists.ubuntu.com?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ubuntu-users-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com
Errors-To: ubuntu-users-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com


Avi Greenbury wrote:
> I've forgotten which is the token other architecture (aside from x86) for *buntu at the minute, I know it's been PPC and SPARC, but I know both of those have been dropped.
>

The other one is x86-64.

> 'Only' supporting one or two architectures is one thing, changing these every couple of releases would irritate the crap out of me if I'd decided on *buntu as my server OS. As the couple of mails about *buntu/SPARC over the last week have demonstrated...
>

Agreed. And that's why we're doing the aforementioned migration.
Something bad must've happened with the sweety-pie deal between
Canonical and Sun.

--TP

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users