Re: Proposal: Optional libsafe add-on?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



John Pybus wrote, On 1/21/2004 7:23 AM:
1) People will work on what they're motivated to, regardless of how this
fits redhat's, the Fedora Project's, or anyone else's, plans and aims,
and whether this is the best overall use of resources or not.

2) There are still plenty of rh7.x/rh8 installations in the wild.  It
does the reputation of the RH/FC line (and linux as a whole) no good if
these are rooted.  The legacy project, and its aim of providing security
updates to the original packages, only exists to support people in
keeping their systems safe.  By mitigating the consequences of many
possible vulnerabilities, this package, potentially, contributes more to
keeping legacy installations secure than a whole bunch of updated rpms.
 So, is it surprising that those responsible for legacy systems, who
use and contribute to fedora-legacy, also care about other protective
measures such as this?

3) Personally, I think this is great idea, and that Warren's proposal
for a well described manual installation is spot on.

What he said. ;)


One thing to note: Warren, you mention that you would like to keep libsafe as a manual upgrade. I would prefer to see it in it's own channel in case we do need to upgrade it.

Is the RPM mentioned in the libsafe bug report the one to check out?

-Dave




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Legacy Announce]     [Fedora Config]     [PAM]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite Questions]

  Powered by Linux