On Wednesday 28 January 2004 08:56, Todd wrote: > 1) Are these issues even relevant to gaim-0.59 which is what ships > with 7.2-8.0? I know the advisories stated most of the issues were > with 0.75 and lower, but my quick (and rather uneducated) glance at > the code makes it seem like some or all of this stuff might not apply > to the older gaim. If they do apply, the backporting might be fun. > What has RHEL done, if anything? Looking at the errata page > (https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rh21ws-errata.html) I don't see > anything released there which makes me think that either they're > having to work hard to backport the fixes or they are not relevant. That is something that really needs to be looked at. If we're not vulnerable, then I'm not going to touch it. I've got a feeling though that anybody who is using gaim regularly has updated their gaim to a newer third party version a while ago. If you have the ability, please do examine the codebase of 7.2-8.0 to see if it's flawed. > 2) IIRC, gaim > 0.60 requires gnome2 or kde 3 for any status docklets > or whatever they're called. The older 0.59 shipped with the legacy > dists this project is targeting had a gnome1 panel applet. Moving to > the newer version will break this and may piss off quite a few people > who use gaim regularly. That's just something to consider. If it's > found that the security issues aren't relevant to 0.59, then it won't > matter at all. This is a very good point, and something to look into. Jonny has built a backported 0.75 for RHL 7.3, has anybody tested it yet and seen if the dock applet works? -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
Attachment:
pgp00241.pgp
Description: signature
