Ben de Groot wrote:
> I am of the opinion it is irresponsible to leave vulnerable versions of Qt with
> known security bugs any longer in the tree. The Qt team therefore requests
> that arches that have not done so already move quickly on stabilizing Qt
> 4.5.3, see bug 290922 and 283810.
> We plan on REMOVING or at the very least HARDMASKING pending removal
> all <=4.5.2 ebuilds by the end of this week. This means that arches that have
> not stabilized 4.5.3 would loose their stable Qt4 version.
It is also irresponsible to punish users by breaking the tree when
arches can't keep up.
> Please let us know if there is any way in which we can assist arches. We
> are aware that some arches are down to one active person. But if there is
> no other way, maybe the status of such arches should be reconsidered.
> We especially request ppc64 to be marked as an experimental arch, as it
> is the worst one lagging in stabilization. See bug 281821 for a poignant
> example, a 3 months open security bug.
I'm sorry that we're having a hard time keeping up, but ppc64 has been
primarily supported by ranger in the recent past, with help from time to
time by other devs. He's been busy with real life work and I was unaware
that security bugs were slipping. So, sorry you're annoyed.
Perhaps pinging on our IRC channel, or a direct email to the ppc64@
alias might have helped to bring this to our attention sooner,
personally I know that I sometimes gloss over bugzilla emails due to the
high volume of requests the arch team gets (doubled since I also work on
the 32 bit port).
I would be extremely disappointed to see ppc/ppc64 be marked as
experimental. As of now, Gentoo is one of the few distributions that
maintains support for ppc/ppc64 (Fedora recently dropped ppc/ppc64 from
it's primary status, I think it's just us and debian left out of the
major distributions) and I'd be sorry to see that go.
Again, sorry for the delay, QT-4.5.3 has been marked ppc64 stable and
should be good to go after bug #261632 is fixed.