| 1 |
Jan Kundrát wrote: |
| 2 |
> Stuart Longland wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>Anyway, wouldn't security updates include the core system, rather than |
| 5 |
>>just things like Apache? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Security updates are updates which are fixing *security* problems. |
| 9 |
> Upgrading glibc is not a security update, IMHO :-). |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Yep... 100% agree... but {g,µC,diet,bsd,whatever}libc is not immune to |
| 13 |
security issues. :-) It's a piece of code which can contain exploitable |
| 14 |
defects like everything else. In fact, this makes things worse, as it's |
| 15 |
a piece of code that's linked into just about every application on the |
| 16 |
system. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Having said that... sometimes there's a lot to be said for the "if it |
| 19 |
ain't broke -- don't fix it" attitude. ;-) Not to mention, security |
| 20 |
through obsolecence -- which you see in action whenever you see a |
| 21 |
website running on Linux 2.x (where x < 4) or Windows NT 4.0. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If it's seriously a problem... make a copy of the profile whilst it |
| 24 |
still exists, and delete the 'deprecated' file you see in there -- that |
| 25 |
will stop Portage from complaining. Mind you... no guarantees that this |
| 26 |
won't break your system either. (whether it should break now, or 6 |
| 27 |
months down the track -- is irrelevant) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+ |
| 31 |
| Stuart Longland -oOo- http://stuartl.longlandclan.hopto.org | |
| 32 |
| Atomic Linux Project -oOo- http://atomicl.berlios.de | |
| 33 |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | |
| 34 |
| I haven't lost my mind - it's backed up on a tape somewhere | |
| 35 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+ |
Archives