On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 02:38:29PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> By taking so long from release to release (NO ofense to anyone) we provide old
> and buggy software (in some cases) which only gets security fixes, but then
> the fame of Debian being rock solid might not be true in all its senses.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:44:39PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 25, Jesus Climent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Bind9, as provided in woody, keeps on falling to its knees for unknown
> >reasons. A strace might help, but so far i have not been able to either keep
> BIND 9 in woody is old
On Jul 25, Jesus Climent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bind9, as provided in woody, keeps on falling to its knees for unknown
>reasons. A strace might help, but so far i have not been able to either keep
BIND 9 in woody is old and buggy, that's all. Ask upstream about this
version and they will te
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 09:13:18PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> Debian stable is horribly outdated but I'm not aware of any severe bugs.
> Could you provide some examples of severe bugs in Debian 3.0?
Bind9, as provided in woody, keeps on falling to its knees for unknown
reasons. A strace might
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:47:33PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > The package (1) does not deal with the logcheck mess that I am trying to
> > solve.
>
> This problem [1] was reported a week ago isn't even fixed in unstable.
>
> Get it fixed in unstable and the fix will go into the backport.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:48:58PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 05:24:19PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >
> > > So you agree on having a bounce of personal archives on p.d.o rather than
> > > a
> > > way of getting them in stable trough oficial channels?
> >
> > If you
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 07:30:39PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> But I want to emphasize that getting nearer a new stable release would
> be much better than discussion how to allow users to use updated
> applications in stable.
Did I mention that I agree? Didn't I? No, I didn't. Well, I agree.
* Jesus Climent ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030723 18:50]:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 04:45:54PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > That applies to data-files (or very similar things) like spamassasin.
> > There should be in the README.Debian given a location for the backport
> > by the maintainer.
> Spamass
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 05:24:19PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > So you agree on having a bounce of personal archives on p.d.o rather than a
> > way of getting them in stable trough oficial channels?
>
> If you use only stable you get the well-known stability of Debian.
Which might be where
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:27:59PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 03:02:59PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 02:17:29PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> >
> > Why should you redo this work?
> > http://www.fs.tum.de/~bunk/packages/
>
> The package (1)
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 04:45:54PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> That applies to data-files (or very similar things) like spamassasin.
> There should be in the README.Debian given a location for the backport
> by the maintainer.
Spamassassin needs more than data files, since the rules relay on
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 03:02:59PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 02:17:29PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
>
> Why should you redo this work?
> http://www.fs.tum.de/~bunk/packages/
The package (1) does not deal with the logcheck mess that I am trying to solve.
data
(1) s
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 10:17:35AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 04:35:04PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If you _really_ need or want a more recent version of a package there's
> > always the possibility to use a backport.
>
> So you agree on having a bou
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 04:35:04PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> If you _really_ need or want a more recent version of a package there's
> always the possibility to use a backport.
So you agree on having a bounce of personal archives on p.d.o rather than a
way of getting them in stable trough ofici
* Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030723 16:35]:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 03:54:32PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If there was a stable release of Debian once a year Debian 3.1 was
> > already released.
> hehe, i knew you would have came to that suggestion sooner or later :)
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 04:37:58PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 04:24:18PM +0200, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> >
> > what about splitting those packages in such a way that there's
> > 1. a base package and
> > 2. a plugin/data/whatever package
> >
> > 2 must be explicitly appro
* Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030723 14:35]:
> ... said that your points are good, it may be useful to define a forum for the
> discussion of cases like phpgroupware or snort. In the end i whould say that
> there must be a general behaviour, but we should leave space for dis
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 04:24:18PM +0200, Mattia Dongili wrote:
>
> what about splitting those packages in such a way that there's
> 1. a base package and
> 2. a plugin/data/whatever package
>
> 2 must be explicitly approved to be an updatable stable package. This
> must obviously only apply to
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 09:17:14AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 03:54:32PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If there was a stable release of Debian once a year Debian 3.1 was
> > already released.
>
> hehe, i knew you would have came to that suggestion soone
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 04:17:57PM +0200, Frank Lenaerts wrote:
>...
> > > The not base part could be split further into parts. These parts could
> > > be things related to mailservers, things related to webservers,
> > > database servers, IDS, end-user workstations, ... Because each of
> > > these
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 08:41:50AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 03:05:23PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Do not even start thinking about something like this.
>
> To late: if i wrote it, i thought it :)
>
> > If you start asking you will likely find more
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 04:05:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 03:08:30PM +0200, Frank Lenaerts wrote:
> >...
> > As base is quite small, it could be released more frequently. The not
> > base part could evolve independent from the base part.
>
> Consider e.g. a g++ transit
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 03:54:32PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> If there was a stable release of Debian once a year Debian 3.1 was
> already released.
hehe, i knew you would have came to that suggestion sooner or later :)
But there are softwares for which it could make sense to update more than on
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 08:58:55AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> Things are clearer now. You're right: i should have done a new package by
> time, but you probably ignore that, due to lack of time, i've filed an RFA on
> phpgroupware which resulted in many mails and no real effort
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 03:08:30PM +0200, Frank Lenaerts wrote:
>...
> As base is quite small, it could be released more frequently. The not
> base part could evolve independent from the base part.
Consider e.g. a g++ transition or a transition to a new version of perl:
There is no simple way to
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 09:10:01AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> This is already in the security team FAQ, and in the developers reference in
> section "5.8.5.3 Preparing packages to address security issues", but
> apparently it requires further explanation, because this issue comes up from
> time
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 08:41:50AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
>...
> I accept your observation on my proposal, but i would more appreciate other
> ideas and/or solutions.
If there was a stable release of Debian once a year Debian 3.1 was
already released.
> ciao,
cu
Adrian
--
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you start asking you will likely find more than thousand packages
> where someone will have a good reason for an update of the package
> in Debian 3.0. If only every 10th of these updates introduces a new
> bug (IMHO a conservative estimation) these pack
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 03:05:23PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Do not even start thinking about something like this.
To late: if i wrote it, i thought it :)
> If you start asking you will likely find more than thousand packages
> where someone will have a good reason for an update of the package
Hi, Nick Phillips wrote:
> I believe that when a package is so badly outdated or broken that the
> version in stable should not or can not be used, it should at least be
> considered for update, new bugs or no.
FWIW, I agree.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PRO
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 02:17:29PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 07:09:01AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote
[...]
> And another one: Who would ever use a SpamAssassin tool which cannot
> catch any of the spam out there nowadays? 2.20-1woody is so old and
> timely
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 03:15:55AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 06:36:06PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > I've some questions for you, first. Would you mind, please, to
> > > explain to me why back-porting a patch for a buggy package in stable
> > > w
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 07:09:01AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 01:19:25PM +0200, Sander Smeenk wrote:
> > The same happened with one of my packages: snort. There was a /really/
> > old release in stable, because new uploads didn't make it in time. There
>
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 07:24:09AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
>...
> ... said that your points are good, it may be useful to define a forum for the
> discussion of cases like phpgroupware or snort. In the end i whould say that
> there must be a general behaviour, but we should lea
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 01:31:52PM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> Because you can never be sure that it will not change the package
> behaviour in all its small details and that will not introduce new bugs.
I believe that when a package is so badly outdated or broken that the version
in s
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 01:31:52PM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> Because you can never be sure that it will not change the package
> behaviour in all its small details and that will not introduce new bugs.
...And that is a rock solid concept if applied in general.
> Probably in the speci
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 07:09:01AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 01:19:25PM +0200, Sander Smeenk wrote:
> > The same happened with one of my packages: snort. There was a /really/
> > old release in stable, because new uploads didn't make it in time. There
>
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 01:19:25PM +0200, Sander Smeenk wrote:
> The same happened with one of my packages: snort. There was a /really/
> old release in stable, because new uploads didn't make it in time. There
> were a couple of reasons why it would be good to have a new upstream
> version of the
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 11:57:54AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> >
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-bug-security
> >
> > in particular "5.8.5.3 Preparing packages to address security issues"
>
Quoting Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> My point is: i understand what said in that paragraph, but what if new version
> is a bugfix release that does not address only a secutiry issue? I'm not sure
> that system administrators would like to have a buggy package on their host
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 11:57:54AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
>
> http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-bug-security
>
> in particular "5.8.5.3 Preparing packages to address security issues"
It doesn't answare my question. I should explain my self in a differ
http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-bug-security
in particular "5.8.5.3 Preparing packages to address security issues"
will answer your question
Fabio
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 06:36:06PM -0400, Matt Zimme
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 06:36:06PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I've some questions for you, first.
> > Would you mind, please, to explain to me why back-porting a patch for a
> > buggy package in stable would be better than releasing a new package for the
> > stable distribution?
>
> Do you m
43 matches
Mail list logo
