general-concepts/security: new page #385
Conversation
thesamesam
force-pushed
the
security
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b7f9731 to
d0dc3e1
Compare
ulm
left a comment
ulm
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"Ebuild maintainance" seems an odd place for this, when the word "ebuild" doesn't even occur in the whole chapter.
I wonder if this shouldn't go under "General concepts" instead?
I was thinking of it in terms of "one's duties when maintaining a package/ebuild". I could use the term ebuild in a few places but I don't want to jam it in either. Let me review and see.. But I do not object to "General concepts", just explaining why I chose this. |
No, I'm not at all asking for this. 😄 That the term "ebuild" is missing in the present version was an indication for me that there might be a better place for the page. |
thesamesam
force-pushed
the
security
branch
2 times, most recently
from
732ed7c to
5af9af2
Compare
thesamesam
changed the title
A lot of this was previously unwritten and/or scattered across the wiki. See also: * https://www.gentoo.org/support/security/vulnerability-treatment-policy.html * https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Security/GLSA_Coordinator_Guide Note that those pages could do with a refresh as well, but one thing at a time. Signed-off-by: Sam James <[email protected]>
| Triage of the bug and filling out of the Bugzilla whiteboard is appreciated | ||
| but not required for the package maintainer. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe explain what the "Bugzilla whiteboard" should contain, or link to an explanation?
|
Please explain (or link to) the format of the bug title so that you don't have to correct me every time 🙏 |
4 participants
A lot of this was previously unwritten and/or scattered across the wiki.
See also:
Note that those pages could do with a refresh as well, but one thing at a time.