On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 21:40 -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 05:11:58AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > The longstanding link restriction patches were recently accepted by > > Andrew Morton and are likely to end up in Linux 3.4. I've applied > > these to src:linux-2.6 in svn and they should end up in the upcoming > > version 3.2.9-1. > > That's excellent news! (I am biased, obviously.) > > > We know that these are going to break some programs, most notably > > 'at' (#597130, fixed in wheezy/sid). But of course it's possible > > to work around that by disabling the restriction, so I don't think > > this should result in a 'Breaks' relation. > > FWIW, as some background, "at" is the only package that I'm aware of > breaking across 1.5 years of (a version of) this patch living in Ubuntu, > and in many more years living in Openwall Linux and grsecurity. So I > feel like "going to break some" is strong. :) [...] > It's a trivial patch[1] to fix "at". How about just backporting that > change to stable, to avoid that known trouble too? This is what Ubuntu > did for the Lucid LTS release that was getting backported kernels (with > link restrictions) built for it. Ansgar, are you happy to do a stable update for this? If so, we can put 'Breaks: at (<< 3.1.12-1+squeeze1)' in the kernel packages for wheezy and hopefully APT will just do the right thing without users having to read NEWS (which doesn't get translated). Ben. -- Ben Hutchings One of the nice things about standards is that there are so many of them.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part