On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:26:01AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> > Requiring distro specific changes feels wrong anyway. Software
> > should be coupled by standardized interfaces. But I might be naive
> > here. What are the distro specific changes we ar
On Fri, 16 May 2008, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Requiring distro specific changes feels wrong anyway. Software
> should be coupled by standardized interfaces. But I might be naive
> here. What are the distro specific changes we are talking about?
It'd be great[0] if we never had to do distribution spe
Hi
Dne Fri, 16 May 2008 20:59:44 +0200
Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napsal(a):
> I don't see a patch there. This might sound like nitpicking, but
> a real patch would have provided some context to the two lines.
Yes there is no context, but it is patch and it is clear that it wants
to remov
On 11387 March 1977, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Nevertheless, the right thing in my opinion would have been to
> propose a patch, wait until it is accepted, and then to package
> the new upstream version.
If you want that - build an own distribution. Or well - an LFS.
Because thats *not* what a distr
Hi Martin,
I'm afraid this will be my last remark in this thread (do I hear cheers
from the crowd?) since I really should go do something more productive
now :-) Thanks for keeping the tone of discourse civil -- clearly this
is a subject you feel strongly about, and the problem that started the
t
Hi Michal!
> Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Upstream answered that it is okay too remove the seeding of the PRNG
> > with uninitialized memory, but the concrete patch which additionally and
> > erranously removed all seeding was never posted on openssl-dev.
>
> Are you sure?
> ht
Hi
On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:28:52 +0200
Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Upstream answered that it is okay too remove the seeding of the PRNG
> with uninitialized memory, but the concrete patch which additionally and
> erranously removed all seeding was never posted on openssl-dev.
Are y
Barry deFreese wrote:
[...]
> > Buggy patches happen all the time. The question is, how could
> > something as bad as this slip through? And one important
> > reason is IMHO, that splitting up the development/bug fixing/review
> > by creating different software branches is bad.
>
> Different softw
Martin Uecker wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree. The cause of the disaster was not that Debian does its own
patching, but the fact that that patch was buggy.
Buggy patches happen all the time. The question is, how could
something as bad as this slip through? And one importan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I disagree. The cause of the disaster was not that Debian does its own
> patching, but the fact that that patch was buggy.
Buggy patches happen all the time. The question is, how could
something as bad as this slip through? And one important
reason is IMHO, that spli
10 matches
Mail list logo
