On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 12:00 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:03:08 +0000 > Jamie Nguyen <j@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Distributions like RHEL and Debian have a very strict update policy > > (for good reason). People expect stability and don't want surprises. > > > > When CVEs arise, patches can often be backported. Nginx 1.8.1 recently > > fixed three CVEs and I've backported to Nginx 1.6.x on EL7. > > > > Unfortunately, Nginx 1.0.x on EL6 is too old; I gave it a good shot > > but backporting the patches reliably without creating new CVEs is > > beyond my expertise. Nginx 0.8.x on EL5 is prehistoric. > > > > I've had a couple of bug reports recently suggesting that I rebase > > Nginx to 1.8.1 on all branches. On the one hand, I want to avoid > > causing surprises and breaking somebody's website. On the other hand, > > these vulnerabilities do need to be fixed. (The approach I took with > > the Tor package is to always use the latest stable release on all > > branches, which is working well.) > > > > What do people think? Should I go ahead and update all branches (with > > appropriate migration notes)? > > Well, this kind of question would probibly be better on the epel-devel > list, but otherwise: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_Updates_Policy > > And you can ask for an exception. This would entail pushing the new > version to testing and leaving it there a while, mailing epel-announce > to note that there's an incompatible version in testing and please test > and then another note before you push it stable to give them a heads > up. You may want to wait and push it stable at the same time as the > next .X release comes out. FWIW, I think that policy could do with less central oversight and more maintainer responsibility. I don't think it's at all reasonable to expect the typical Fedora maintainer to be capable of backporting security fixes to releases which are unmaintained upstream. I think it would be absolutely a better policy to give maintainers freedom to bump to a new release series when the current release series becomes unmaintained upstream, with some guidelines and pointers on a responsible way to manage this process. Red Hat can pay dozens of engineers lots of money to work full time on maintaining code that upstream has abandoned, Fedora/EPEL cannot. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
