| 1 |
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:38:59 +0200, Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 07/13/04 Michael Kohl wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 07:36:27 -0400 |
| 5 |
> > Andy Dustman <farcepest@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > > Personally I think the letter codes you get are not so good: |
| 8 |
> > > Intuitively, [N] means "no" but it really means "might be affected". |
| 9 |
> > > I'd prefer something like: |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > [ ] means this GLSA was already applied, |
| 12 |
> > > [-] means the system is not affected and |
| 13 |
> > > [X] indicates that the system might be affected. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> As for the letters, I choose N for "new" to somehow resemble the emerge |
| 16 |
> output. I've added color support in CVS so that it's clearer which lines |
| 17 |
> are the important ones, those changes are just not released yet. |
| 18 |
> Also keep in mind that glsa-check is a *temporary* solution, it will be |
| 19 |
> integrated into emerge in the future (unfortunately not in 2.0.51), so |
| 20 |
> I'm not to keen to make the interface perfect. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Just as a suggestion, with Portage, it might be nice to see something |
| 23 |
like: [ US] where S is for Security update. Will emerge --update |
| 24 |
automatically do the GLSA check, or is that still an open issue? I |
| 25 |
long ago heard one of planned feature was to have --security-only to |
| 26 |
minimize updates to only important fixes; is that still the case? |
Archives