TSC issueshttps://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/tsc/-/issues2023-11-08T07:26:24Zhttps://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/tsc/-/issues/2deadline for packages in testing2023-11-08T07:26:24ZAriadne Conillariadne@ariadne.spacedeadline for packages in testingFrequently, `testing` gets packages contributed to it which never leave and just bitrot.
I would like to propose a deadline for packages in `testing`: they either get moved to `community` or `main`, or they get removed within some time ...Frequently, `testing` gets packages contributed to it which never leave and just bitrot.
I would like to propose a deadline for packages in `testing`: they either get moved to `community` or `main`, or they get removed within some time limit.
I think a deadline will also motivate packagers to more actively participate in the maintenance of their packages.
Thoughts?Carlo LandmeterCarlo Landmeterhttps://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/tsc/-/issues/17alpine-glibc2022-06-06T17:42:35ZAriadne Conillariadne@ariadne.spacealpine-glibcIt has come to the security team's attention that there are Docker images that make use of `alpine-pkg-glibc`.
It has also come to the security team's attention that end users and developers of these Docker images believe that `alpine-p...It has come to the security team's attention that there are Docker images that make use of `alpine-pkg-glibc`.
It has also come to the security team's attention that end users and developers of these Docker images believe that `alpine-pkg-glibc` is supported by the Alpine community in some way, which it obviously is not.
aports!24647 was a proposed update to `musl` which blocks installation of the glibc packages provided by the `alpine-pkg-glibc` project. The `alpine-pkg-glibc` project may rebuild the `musl` package with `ALLOW_GLIBC_PKG=1` in `abuild.conf` if they wish to provide their own `musl` package in their repo. We have concluded based on informal consensus to approach this as a documentation issue instead.
We may also wish to request the `alpine-pkg-glibc` project rename itself in order to make it more clear to the community that it is NOT an officially blessed project of Alpine, but that is an issue for the council.
Thusly, there are two items referred:
* ~~Should we accept the proposed `musl-1.2.2-r6` update into `edge`?~~
* Should we refer the `alpine-glibc` branding issue to the council to follow up on?2021-08-30https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/tsc/-/issues/75Determine requirements for developers with direct push access2023-12-07T15:29:56ZKevin DaudtDetermine requirements for developers with direct push accessIt should be good to reevaluate what our criteria are for adding new developers, since the security landscape is continuously changing and threats increase.It should be good to reevaluate what our criteria are for adding new developers, since the security landscape is continuously changing and threats increase.