hi,
Am Montag, den 11.07.2016, 00:08 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> The important concern is related to lose track of what is inside all
> those containers. Imagine some containers depend on
>
except that there are no containers ...
yes, it might be that an app ships a vulnerable TLS lib in the
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 00:08:48 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>The important concern is related to lose track of what is inside all
>those containers. Imagine some containers depend on
>
>https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=cve-2014-0160
>
>Two years ago, all communities were aware about it
The important concern is related to lose track of what is inside all
those containers. Imagine some containers depend on
https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=cve-2014-0160
Two years ago, all communities were aware about it and after a few days
it wasn't an issue anymore.
If the so
hi,
Am Sonntag, den 10.07.2016, 17:11 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> Hi,
>
> there's an interesting counter-argument against something similar to
> snapcraft/snappy.
>
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2016-July/041579.h
> tml
well, this is about flatpack not snappy ...
On Sun, 2016-07-10 at 17:11 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there's an interesting counter-argument against something similar to
> snapcraft/snappy.
>
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2016-July/041579.h
> tml
>
That's the security team going off into lala land with a
Hi,
there's an interesting counter-argument against something similar to
snapcraft/snappy.
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2016-July/041579.html
I guess snapcraft/snappy and anything similar could be useful, but
indeed, IMO those are good reasons to not become too much used
