On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 01:45:25AM +0200, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
Am Di den 27. Mai 2008 um 1:09 schrieb Colin Watson:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 09:15:57AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
The rollout of information and updates was appalling - even adding in
the material from Ubuntu the information was
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think everyone involved did a wonderful job, especially given the
appalling constraints they were under. There is a difference, though,
between acknowledging the excellent work that was done and burying one's
head in the
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you see packages for which a Debian-specific patch seems unnecessary,
please by all means file a bug (severity wishlist) requesting that the
patch be either reverted or submitted upstream.
Most time the patch is already submitted upstream, but
Hi,
Le 16 mai 08 à 13:48, Martin Uecker a écrit :
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you see packages for which a Debian-specific patch seems
unnecessary,
please by all means file a bug (severity wishlist) requesting that
the
patch be either reverted or submitted upstream.
Le vendredi 16 mai 2008 à 14:48 +0200, Thibaut Paumard a écrit :
Let's hope this discussion will, in the end, bring good ideas and
trigger actual work to improve Debian, and perhaps the free software
community at large.
Best regards, Thibaut.
That'd be great.
But please, may I
2008/5/16 Thibaut Paumard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
the topic has already been changed to ssl security desaster, and in my
opinion this is precisely what my post is about: what can we learn from this
disaster. (More precisely, I'm giving my 2c on what level of patching is
acceptable in a Debian
Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe there should also be a clasification of packages according to
how bad would a bug be in them for the whole system, so that patches
in those could be more carefully reviewed.
Perhaps uploads could come with the diff against the last version (or
a link
Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:11:27AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Also if you have 2 messages signed with the same random number you can
compute the secret key. It is more complicated then this but
simplified boils down to is computing k given
On Thursday 15 May 2008 14:04, Martin Uecker wrote:
If I understand this correctly, this means that not only should keys
generated with the broken ssl lib be considered compromised, but all
keys which were potentially used to create DSA signatures by those
broken libs.
In this case, the
Am Donnerstag, den 15.05.2008, 15:20 +0200 schrieb Thijs Kinkhorst:
On Thursday 15 May 2008 14:04, Martin Uecker wrote:
If I understand this correctly, this means that not only should keys
generated with the broken ssl lib be considered compromised, but all
keys which were potentially used
On Thursday 15 May 2008 16:47, Martin Uecker wrote:
You mean less likely than once in 15 years? We're open to your
suggestions.
Something as bad as this might be rare, still, if something can be
improved, it should.
Upstream complained about the extensive Debian patching. I think this
is
On Thu May 15 2008 06:20:10 Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
You mean less likely than once in 15 years? We're open to your suggestions.
Leaving millions of systems open to crackers for 2 years out of 15
is not a joke. I don't blame the DD - we have all made mistakes
and most of us are lucky they weren't
On Thu May 15 2008 08:33:54 Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
I welcome change and review of our processes, but taking one extreme
incident as the base on which to draw conclusions seems not the wise thing
to do. If you're interested in for example changing the level to which
software is patched in
Am Donnerstag, den 15.05.2008, 17:33 +0200 schrieb Thijs Kinkhorst:
On Thursday 15 May 2008 16:47, Martin Uecker wrote:
You mean less likely than once in 15 years? We're open to your
suggestions.
Something as bad as this might be rare, still, if something can be
improved, it should.
On Thursday 15 May 2008 18:26, Martin Uecker wrote:
Why not? A plane crash is a very rare incident. Still every single
crash is investigated to make recommendations for their future
avoidance.
Maybe that wasn't clear from my first mail, but I don't think that nothing can
be learned from this
Martin Uecker wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 15.05.2008, 17:33 +0200 schrieb Thijs Kinkhorst:
If you're interested in for example changing the level to which software is
patched in Debian, I suggest to start with a representative review of what
gets patched and why it's done. That would give
[Mike Bird]
but we should blame the process. And fix it.
it would probably have been better to devote less effort to the
scanner and more effort to documenting all the kinds of key
replacements
Serious efforts are needed
Second, we must ensure
This calls for a thorough investigation
On Thu May 15 2008 10:34:01 Peter Samuelson wrote:
Who is this we? Whose serious efforts? Who is investigating? Most
importantly, should we assume that, as in the past, you, Mike Bird,
intend to do nothing but talk?
Debian is still one of the world's best distros and I hope it
continues as
[Mike Bird]
Nevertheless, non-DD's can and do help by filing bug reports and
patches (upstream is best), helping people on d-u, and offering
constructive advice to DDs.
Very well. I propose that anyone who wishes to give constructive
advice to developers, but who doesn't actually do any of
Hi,
Le 15 mai 08 à 20:17, Mike Bird a écrit :
Nevertheless, non-DD's can and do help by filing bug reports and
patches (upstream is best), helping people on d-u, and offering
constructive advice to DDs.
And maintaining packages! It can be long to find a sponsor for your
first package
This one time, at band camp, Mike Bird said:
Yet Debian makes it hard for people to help. Like most software
engineers I simply don't have the time to waste on Debian's NM
process. Debian's processes are indisputably Debian's decision
alone, but Debian has to live with the consequences ...
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Who is this we? Whose serious efforts? Who is investigating? Most
importantly, should we assume that, as in the past, you, Mike Bird,
intend to do nothing but talk?
I think this is a common stylistic choice. I consider myself part of
the Debian
22 matches
Mail list logo
