[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal: security-patch team for hamm

On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 12:02:28AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Joop Stakenborg <aba@casema.net> writes:
> > We are a group of 500 developers. There must be some people out there
> > who are interested in setting this up.
> Precisely.  So lets not even worry about official blessing -- those
> who are interested (developers, or not) should just go ahead and do
> it.  If it's sucessful, maybe we could get some official blessing and
> space on archive.debian.org.
> But I'm dubious anyone will actually bother...

Well, that sounded like a challenge if I ever heard one.  So I went through
all the security announcements since slink went stable, in order to compile
any hamm-compatible .deb's that were needed.  Here's what I came up with:

- xfs and XFree86 were not vulnerable in slink; I assume the same for hamm;
- ipopd, mailman, and kernel-2.2 weren't even in hamm in the first place; &
- the fixed procmail and man-db packages install fine under hamm already.

And of course everyone has patched up to at least kernel 2.0.37 so we've all
rolled our own new lsof-2.0.37 already anyway.  So that's it, i.e. no extra
work is needed to bring hamm's packages up to speed.  Whooda thunkit?  (-:

I will happily keep checking new security-related package releases and provide
hamm-compatible ones on my website when needed (assuming I'm still on hamm),
http://skyron.harvard.edu/debian/ .  The lsof-2.0.37 .deb is on there now.

cheers all

"don't listen when you're told about the best days in your life     Spirit of
 a useless old expression, it means passing time until you die."     the West
  -- John Girash -- girash @ cfa.harvard.edu - http://skyron.harvard.edu/ --

Reply to: