Jan KundrÃt wrote: > Stuart Longland wrote: > >>Anyway, wouldn't security updates include the core system, rather than >>just things like Apache? > > > Security updates are updates which are fixing *security* problems. > Upgrading glibc is not a security update, IMHO :-). >
Yep... 100% agree... but {g,ÂC,diet,bsd,whatever}libc is not immune to
security issues. :-) It's a piece of code which can contain exploitable
defects like everything else. In fact, this makes things worse, as it's
a piece of code that's linked into just about every application on the
system.
Having said that... sometimes there's a lot to be said for the "if it
ain't broke -- don't fix it" attitude. ;-) Not to mention, security
through obsolecence -- which you see in action whenever you see a
website running on Linux 2.x (where x < 4) or Windows NT 4.0.
If it's seriously a problem... make a copy of the profile whilst it
still exists, and delete the 'deprecated' file you see in there -- that
will stop Portage from complaining. Mind you... no guarantees that this
won't break your system either. (whether it should break now, or 6
months down the track -- is irrelevant)
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Stuart Longland -oOo- http://stuartl.longlandclan.hopto.org |
| Atomic Linux Project -oOo- http://atomicl.berlios.de |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
| I haven't lost my mind - it's backed up on a tape somewhere |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
