On Fri, 5 May 2006 16:38:57 +0200
Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Friday 05 May 2006 15:23, Kevin F. Quinn (Gentoo) wrote:
> > I disagree.  Your argument is for not using ~arch at all, rather
> > than an argument against keeping control of what you have from
> > ~arch.
> 
> No. My argument is that category/ebuild is much better than 
> =category/ebuild-x*. If and only if there's a problem with the
> former, you should take the latter into account and monitor the
> ebuild changes closely.

From my perspective, category/package is worse.  It means once a package
goes ~arch, it never becomes arch again.  My approach means that when
I've gone ~arch to get something only available in that version, it
becomes arch once the package gets stabilised or a later version is
stabilised.

> > In practice, I tend to do:
> >
> > =category/package-version* ~arch
> >
> > so that I pick up -rN bumps on unstable versions as this should mean
> > that the maintainer considers the change necessary for users of that
> > version.
> 
> So you won't get security updates, when this means it is a version
> bump. And this is most often the case. Unless you _always_ read the
> ChangeLogs and referenced bugs of all ebuilds you run testing, this
> is not safe.

First, I'll get the security updates when (1) the relevant updated
package goes stable, which is usually pretty quickly, or (2)
notification is made in gentoo-announce (which must be the correct
place to get such notifications).

Secondly, "Up-to-date on GLSAs" != "safe".  Not by a long shot.
Further, missing GLSAs does not necessarily mean I'm vulnerable.
That's what the detail is for in the GLSAs; so I can make a judgement
call on whether I need to worry about a vulnerability or not.

Lastly, if there are versions of a package in ~arch that have known
security flaws, my understanding is that they either get patched with a
-rN bump, or they get removed from the tree in favour of a later
version that is not vulnerable.  Either way, I get notification when I
next do an update.

-- 
Kevin F. Quinn

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to