[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Any objections to removing address@hidden

From: Leo Famulari
Subject: Re: Any objections to removing address@hidden
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 12:31:30 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)

On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:11:39AM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> Does anyone here still need address@hidden in Guix?  If not, I'd like
> to remove it.
> Upstream security updates for it seem to be quite infrequent (2.5 months
> between the last two releases), and the recent update to 4.1.40
> neglected to include a fix for CVE-2017-6074, which does not inspire
> confidence.
> What do you think?

I don't have a strong objection. If somebody needs this particular Linux release
series later, it will not be difficult for them to recreate.

On the other hand, the 4.1 series has been selected for the Linux Foundation's
Long Term Support Initiative. This program will support Linux releases for
longer than usual, so 4.1 will be in use for longer than most of the Linux LTS

Besides, kernel bugs are not rare. More will be found and disclosed, and some
will be found and kept private :/

I recommend waiting a few days for more comments. IIRC, we kept this particular
series to work around some bugs related to GuixSD and Libreboot. So, there were
some people using it. I'd hate to "strand" existing users who might not notice
that they are not receiving updates to the 'linux-4.1' package they've specified
in their GuixSD configuration.

If Hydra resources are a concern, perhaps we could keep the package but not
build it.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]