On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 10:27 PM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Allan McRae <allan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 22/06/10 12:07, C Anthony Risinger wrote: >>> >>> my point of this ramble if there is one, is that personally, i don't >>> want _anyone_ other than upstream to make security decisions regarding >>> their software.if Arch started naively backporting stuff based of >> >>> the latest alert from XYZ, i wouldn't be sticking around to long. >>> even if an security hole is found i _don't_ want the fix to be >>> included by default, unless it came from upstream in the form of a new >>> release, which Arch would just pick up as usual. >> >> >> Then you should probably move along... >> >>> find /var/abs -name *CVE* >> /var/abs/extra/libmikmod/libmikmod-CVE-2009-0179.patch >> /var/abs/extra/xmms/xmms-1.2.11-CVE-2007-0653.0654.patch >> /var/abs/extra/alpine/CVE-2008-5514.patch >> /var/abs/extra/libtiff/libtiff-CVE-2009-2285.patch >> /var/abs/extra/libtiff/tiff-3.9.0-CVE-2009-2347.patch >> /var/abs/extra/id3lib/id3lib-3.8.3-CVE-2007-4460.patch >> /var/abs/core/expat/CVE-2009-3720.patch >> /var/abs/core/expat/CVE-2009-3560.patch >> >> and these are just the patches named for the security issue they fix. >> >> The point is that the developers around here already patch for security >> issues. The only change that I think that a security team will achieve is >> to notify me (as a developer) of issues that I have overlooked on the >> upstream mailing lists and file a bug report. It is a bonus if the issue is >> pre-analyzed for me and all relevant links supplied so I can assess it >> quickly myself and release a fixed package if I deem that being suitable. > > indeed. 2007/8/9? are these patches from years ago, for dead > software (xmms?)? i don't know the state of the others. > > alright, so you're patching stuff... why? why are such old patches > not in upstream? if things were done appropriately there wouldn't be > a need for intermediary patches because glaring security holes are > quickly absorbed into upstream. or... whats the deal here? i don't > get the need to carry these around. > > at any rate i don't agree with it but meh, i'm just a worker bee :-) Do you honestly think releasing software is that easy? It *sucks*. It is the least enjoyable part of being an open-source developer. They probably are in upstream and they haven't done a release for some very good raeson, or upstream is no longer well-maintained. Does that mean we should leave people vulnerable because of some party line we have? Heck no. -Dan
