| 1 |
On Tue, May 26, 2009 4:49 pm, Tiziano Müller wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Dienstag, den 26.05.2009, 16:19 +0200 schrieb Robert Buchholz: |
| 3 |
[...] |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
>> (+) SLOT support. An implied attribute 'slot' to the 'vulnerable' |
| 6 |
>> and 'unaffected' tag will be introduced. This limits the scope of |
| 7 |
>> the range specifiers to ebuilds in the specified slot. The default |
| 8 |
>> is '*' meaning all slots. [1] |
| 9 |
> I don't think this is really a good idea since the version may or may |
| 10 |
> not be tied to a slot (at the moment it is in most cases I know). |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Yes, but in the few cases where another version is added to a lower slot, we |
| 14 |
need to edit all the old glsas, which can turn into a real nightmare in some |
| 15 |
cases. see bug #255116 and glsa-200804-20 for example. |
| 16 |
Having slot support would really make things a lot easier in these cases, and |
| 17 |
wouldn't change anything in the other cases. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Pierre-Yves Rofes |
| 21 |
Gentoo Linux Security Team |
Archives