Gentoo Archives: gentoo-security

From: Volker Armin Hemmann <volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de>
To: gentoo-security@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-security] org-x11 GLSA 200509-07. Is bug #96053 fixed in -r3? (black icons)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 01:27:44
Message-Id: 200509140322.43161.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-security] org-x11 GLSA 200509-07. Is bug #96053 fixed in -r3? (black icons) by William Kenworthy
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 01:28, William Kenworthy wrote:
> I'm using the workaround of manually deleting the problem patch during > the build. > > The problem for gentoo that I see is that with the removal of -r1 (and > xfree being the only viable alternative is not available either), gentoo > does not have a usable desktop for those actually using it in > production, so this should be viewed as a serious issue that requires > active resolution - just leaving this issue in place until we catch up > with upstream means this is going to become a running sore for gentoo. > > We (the users) need a stable, secure, and working X.
where did you get the idea, that a moving target like gentoo is apropriate for a production box? If you put gentoo onto such a box, it is your very own problem. If you want total stability and a lot of testing prior a patch goes out, maybe you should spent the bucks and buy SLES or RHEL If something breaks with them, you have a right to whine. Oh, and by the way: for me X is stable, secure and working - everybody has different needs. -- gentoo-security@g.o mailing list

Replies