| 1 |
Ian P. Christian wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/16/06 Paul Kölle wrote: |
| 3 |
>> The basic problem here is: Upstream may not publish "security fixes" |
| 4 |
>> but just a new (fixed) version. If you want a "stable" tree, you have |
| 5 |
>> to watch upstream cvs/svn/mailing lists and backport fixes. That is a |
| 6 |
>> lot of work. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> that infrastructure is already in place in gentoo. Package maintainers |
| 9 |
> do it... they need to just make it clear when they update an ebuild |
| 10 |
> weather it's a general upgrade, or a security upgrade. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
glsa-check will tell you if it's a security upgrade, but it will do |
| 13 |
version bumps including ${PV} nevertheless. That is, your dependency |
| 14 |
tree will change and possibly lead to unwanted upgrades (read: upgrade |
| 15 |
with possible config changes, new features, new bugs). |
| 16 |
AFAIK gentoo devs don't do backports, i.e. if samba has a vulnerability |
| 17 |
in say 3.0.23a which is fixed in 3.0.23b, you won't get a "security |
| 18 |
fixes only" 3.0.23a-r1 but just 3.0.23b with new features *and* fixed bugs. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
cheers |
| 21 |
Paul |
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |
Archives