On 05/17/2010 11:10 AM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > As far as I understood,... you guys are already starting to patch > unrelated software just to make UPG work (see > #581919). > > Even the title of that "bug", "bad ownership or modes..." is > ridiculous... and proves what I've predicted before, namely that these > changes will compromise security (such a patch will also affect non UPG > systems). You haven't shown any implementation that security will be compromised in any way. You just keep throwing it around, which isn't doing anything for the discussion. > On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 11:04 -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote: >> If you're using a non-UPG system, then you don't care. Debian is >> UPG-based, so your argument is invalid. > You actually, have to care... at least if #581919 is "solved". 581919 is a regression from 314347. It should be fixed just on that basis. -- . O . O . O . . O O . . . O . . . O . O O O . O . O O . . O O O O . O . . O O O O . O O O
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature