| 1 |
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:11:42 +0400, Peter Volkov <pva@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> В Втр, 17/08/2010 в 11:27 +0200, Alex Legler пишет: |
| 4 |
> > but as for removing the old versions, that's something we usually |
| 5 |
> > ask people to do after bumping packages with security issues to |
| 6 |
> > minimize the risk of people installing possibly vulnerable versions. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I agree with removal but not immediately. Personally I already had |
| 9 |
> issues with another web application: it worked in my installation, but |
| 10 |
> people were unable to use it after security fix. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
In that case: Reopen the bug and inform us. Besides, you should only |
| 13 |
get issues when dealing with ~arch ebuilds as they're not tested. But |
| 14 |
that's what you get for using testing. *shrug* |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Since having |
| 17 |
> vulnerable but working installation is better then "fixed" but |
| 18 |
> broken, |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
No offense, but that's just naive. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> I'd rather always kept old versions for some time. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Use a local overlay then. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Also it's |
| 27 |
> not a big problem to have old versions in the tree since you have to |
| 28 |
> specify version number explicitly to install them... |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
You obviously haven't been in our support venues and seen what some |
| 32 |
people are able to do... |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Alex Legler | Gentoo Security / Ruby |
| 36 |
a3li@g.o | a3li@××××××××××.de |
Archives