Re: The harden-*flaws packages.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 02:35:13PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> I'm the maintainer of the harden-*flaws packages. The idea is to
> have conflicts with packages that are known to have security holes.
> This is not a big problem for unstable (and mostly for testing)
> but now woody have become stable.
>
> So I now ask you what you think. Should I upload updated conflicts
> for woody or should I just let it be as is (the packages are
> then quite useless in woody). Or should I upload new ones. With
> which priority and for what distribution name? "woody-proposed-updates",
> "woody", "woody-security-updates" or what?
I'm not honestly sure why it helps. Surely in order to see the new
harden-*flaws packages, people will have to update, and at that point
they will see the new packages anyway? I don't understand why somebody
would upgrade harden-*flaws and not the security updates themselves. As
far as I can tell, harden-*flaws is only useful for security holes for
which no fix is available.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: