The other major problem with static linking is it forces the maintainers
to sync their releases with BDB security releases. If a defect is found
in BDB and sks is statically linked, a new sks has to be released. If a
defect is found in BDB and sks is dynamically linked, no new release of
sks
On Apr 29, 2012, at 4:59 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 18:59 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
And your opinion is contrary to what was recommended.
Well this is not just my opinion but decades of lectures learned in
software design…
I'm reporting what was
On Apr 29, 2012, at 5:22 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
The other major problem with static linking is it forces the maintainers
to sync their releases with BDB security releases. If a defect is found
in BDB and sks is statically linked, a new sks has to be released. If a
defect is found in
On 04/29/2012 05:42 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
If there were any BDB security releases, you might have a point.
http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2009-1436
Yes, that's actually a bug in the libc db interface, not BDB itself, but
the point still stands: this is something that
On Apr 29, 2012, at 6:24 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
You are very very confused: db-1.85 went end-of-life
in like 1994
Not at all. That advisory, if you missed it, is from 2009.
I really don't care if db-1.85 was EOLed in 1994, 1984, or 1974. What I
care about is that it *is still
Jeffrey, it's a bit strange, to read you claiming Debian would have lack
of skill / etc. while you try to convince us of static linking, or at
least that's what I think you do.
Whether BDB has a big CVE record or not doesn't matter at all, as
security holes (or other critical) bugs can just
On Apr 29, 2012, at 7:14 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
Jeffrey, it's a bit strange, to read you claiming Debian would have lack
of skill / etc. while you try to convince us of static linking, or at
least that's what I think you do.
Its equally strange to receive hostile comments
Am Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:19:48 -0400
schrieb Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net:
Hi,
On 04/21/2012 09:57 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
I've never packaged for the Debian trees: I've only ever made .debs
for my own local installation. Should I set up a VM with Debian
Unstable and
On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 19:44 -0500, John Clizbe wrote:
See my message from last night with the 11:38PM CDT timestamp.
Upgrading for DB is pretty painless.
Well if this is not possible, just add a NEWS entry, fully describing
what have to be done.
Generally it would be a good idea, to extensively
On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 14:56 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
And the recommended -- by SleepyCat -- solution is to internalize
Berkeley DB to avoid breakage between different applications
compiled against different libraries.
With internalise you mean that the package should ship it's own copy of
On Apr 23, 2012, at 6:25 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 14:56 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
And the recommended -- by SleepyCat -- solution is to internalize
Berkeley DB to avoid breakage between different applications
compiled against different libraries.
With
On Apr 23, 2012, at 6:59 PM, Jeffrey Johnson n3...@me.com wrote:
I don't know whether 175KB is still accurate: but Berkeley DB
isn't huge by any means.
Here is the current size of a Berkeley DB smallbuild
The resulting library is approximately one-half megabyte and contains
everything
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1,SHA256
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 19:44 -0500, John Clizbe wrote:
See my message from last night with the 11:38PM CDT timestamp.
Upgrading for DB is pretty painless.
Well if this is not possible, just add a NEWS entry,
On 04/21/2012 09:57 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
I've never packaged for the Debian trees: I've only ever made .debs for
my own local installation. Should I set up a VM with Debian Unstable
and build against that?
yes, building it against a debian unstable instance is a good idea.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1,SHA256
Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On 04/20/2012 08:44 PM, John Clizbe wrote:
I think we could host the .deb(s) on the Google Code download page
Would you need a .deb. for each Debian release?
If the packaging meets debian quality standards, i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
DB versions in Debian :
stable has 4.6, 4.7 4.8
testing has 4.8, 5.1 5.3
unstable has 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 5.1 5.3
John Clizbe wrote:
Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On 04/20/2012 08:44 PM, John Clizbe wrote:
I think we could host the .deb(s) on the
On 04/21/2012 06:56 AM, Andy Ruddock wrote:
DB versions in Debian :
stable has 4.6, 4.7 4.8
testing has 4.8, 5.1 5.3
unstable has 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 5.1 5.3
Thanks for the summary! It's worth noting that the db maintainer in
debian would like to move exclusively to 5.3 before wheezy is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On 04/21/2012 06:56 AM, Andy Ruddock wrote:
DB versions in Debian :
stable has 4.6, 4.7 4.8
testing has 4.8, 5.1 5.3
unstable has 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 5.1 5.3
Thanks for the summary! It's worth noting that the db
On Apr 21, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Andy Ruddock wrote:
That's my interpretation. So a backport of sks to stable would also
require a backport of libdb5.3, yes? (It's good that multiple versions
of the Berkeley DB can coexist).
There is another (but likely minority/contrarian opinion)
On 04/21/2012 01:28 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
If the packaging meets debian quality standards, i think we can pretty
easily get it into debian proper -- no need to host it on the google
code download page.
I've never packaged for the Debian trees: I've only ever made .debs for
my own
Am Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:51:32 +0100
schrieb Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org:
Hi,
Where? I have not seen this complaint.
Sorry, how could i forget the red tape. Will do so.
He wrote to me personally that there will be no new SKS debian
package
and that is simply not acceptable for the
On 2012-04-20 15:34, Sebastian Urbach wrote:
Am Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:51:32 +0100
schrieb Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org:
Hi,
Where? I have not seen this complaint.
Sorry, how could i forget the red tape. Will do so.
He wrote to me personally that there will be no new SKS debian
On 04/20/12 08:44, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
Hi Sebastian (and other folks interested in sks in debian)--
On 04/20/2012 04:32 AM, Sebastian Urbach wrote:
Just for everyone who depends on a debian sks package. I complained to
the the debian project about Christoph Martin (Main Debian SKS
If we're in need of 1.1.3 packages for Debian and Debian-derived
distros, I might be able to help. My OCaml is no better than functional
(pardon the pun) and my knowledge of .debs is far from comprehensive,
but I have free time to devote to this.
At present I have zero interest in taking over
On 04/20/2012 01:17 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
If we're in need of 1.1.3 packages for Debian and Debian-derived
distros, I might be able to help. My OCaml is no better than functional
(pardon the pun) and my knowledge of .debs is far from comprehensive,
but I have free time to devote to
On 20.04.2012 10:32, Sebastian Urbach wrote:
He wrote to me personally that there will be no new SKS debian package
and that is simply not acceptable for the most common Linux server
Distribution.
He gave me that statement when i asked him regarding the 1.1.2 version
and it seems that
On Apr 20, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
I suspect the trickiest parts might be thinking about how to get a
smooth upgrade from 1.1.1 and possibly how to deal with a transition to
a newer version of bdb or ocaml. But i haven't looked into it beyond that.
Berkeley DB
On Apr 20, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
(aside from 1st hand experience)
Watch out for db-5.2.19 - db-5.2.25 however. Someone
This should have been db-5.1.19 - db-5.1.25.
73 de Jeff
___
Sks-devel mailing list
Sks-devel@nongnu.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1,SHA256
John Clizbe wrote:
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
On 4/20/12 2:22 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
I suspect the trickiest parts might be thinking about how to get a
smooth upgrade from 1.1.1 and possibly how to deal with a transition
to a newer
29 matches
Mail list logo
