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

Re: Tracking buster/stable updates suited for LTS



Hi Sylvian,

I have just tested the patch and it really produces much more packages
to be triaged and they are really reasonable!

I would propose to merge it into the master branch and start to use it.

Thanks for that!

Anton


Am Mi., 20. Apr. 2022 um 20:54 Uhr schrieb Sylvain Beucler <beuc@beuc.net>:
Hi Anton,

There's no need for a MR for this short lts-specific patch, and I
believe this list has better visibility for the LTS team than the
security-tracker salsa project (where lts-cve-triage.py resides).

Cheers!
Sylvain

On 20/04/2022 18:09, Anton Gladky wrote:
> Hi Sylvian,
>
> thanks for your work! Could you please create a merge request,
> so we can discuss this nice improvement there?
>
> Regards
>
> Am Mi., 20. Apr. 2022 um 17:33 Uhr schrieb Sylvain Beucler
> <beuc@beuc.net <mailto:beuc@beuc.net>>:
>
>     Now with the patch.
>
>     On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 05:08:20PM +0200, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
>      > During my last front-desk week I noticed that we tend to miss or
>     delay
>      > some buster security updates, in particular those that come in point
>      > releases, and a few batches of minor postponed fixes.  See for
>      > instance, 'dpdk' [1] or 'mailman' [2].
>      >
>      > Attached is a patch to 'bin/lts-cve-triage.py' to help exhibit those
>      > updates so we schedule them in dla-needed.txt.  This includes fixes
>      > from stable/oldstable point releases or past DSAs, but excludes
>     issues
>      > explicitly ignored, and old fixes from back when buster was unstable.
>      >
>      > The current output is manageable (40-50 packages), and I plan to trim
>      > it further down by properly tagging <ignored> some no-dsa issues that
>      > are not meant to be fixed in stretch (see e.g. 'ark' [3]), and
>     tagging
>      > <end-of-life> a few others (e.g. 'node-*').
>      >
>      > At this point front-desk can proceed as usual using the enhanced
>      > 'lts-cve-triage.py' output.  Front-desk may need to use 'no-dsa'
>      > sparingly in the future, in favor of its 'postponed' and 'ignored'
>      > sub-states [4], so as to better help the tool.
>      >
>      > What do you think?
>      >
>      > Cheers!
>      > Sylvain Beucler
>      > Debian LTS Team
>      >
>      > [1]
>     https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/dpdk
>     <https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/dpdk>
>      > [2]
>     https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/mailman
>     <https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/mailman>
>      > [3]
>     https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/ark
>     <https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/ark>
>      > [4]
>     https://security-team.debian.org/security_tracker.html#issues-not-warranting-a-security-advisory
>     <https://security-team.debian.org/security_tracker.html#issues-not-warranting-a-security-advisory>


Reply to: