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

Re: Please consider portmap 5-12 for sarge (was: RFFE: portmap 5-11)

On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 07:26:47PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>Anibal Monsalve Salazar wrote:
>>>THe missing information in the transcript is that "no" was the default,
>>>even though per the config file the default should have been yes.
>>It's corrected now.
>> portmap (5-12) unstable; urgency=high
>> .
>>   * Changed default of debconf question to correspond to the value
>>     in the config file.
>This looks fine (ignoring the non-rc bug I filed on it).
>>>>>>     Patch by Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org>.
>>>>>>     Closes: #301130, #286301.
>>>>>So you made a change in -10 that introduced a RC bug that was fixed
>>>>>in -11? And no changes in -10 were RC or even important. The point of
>>>>>freeze exceptions is not to allow continuing unstable development of
>>>>>packages in sarge so I don't see why this should be accepted. 
>>>>Javier pushed -10 as an important security improvement for desktop/laptop
>>>>systems and I agree with him on that regard. Running portmap listening
>>>>to the world on a desktop/laptop system is a considerable security
>>>This is only my opinion, but debian systems have been running with these
>>>problems for as long as there was debian; delaying the sarge release to
>>>fix them does not seem worth it.
>My opinion hasn't changed except that I do now consider the new portmap
>to be, apparently, free of new RC bugs caused by this series of changes.
>I have a hard time justifying portmap -10 in sarge as a security
>improvement, but if others disagree, that's fine.

This version will fix a couple of important bugs present in sarge.
It fixes #306929 [0] which could be RC. Also, it fixes #301535.

[0] "SIGCHLD handler doesn't preserve errno"
[1] "incomplete chroot patch from #274178"


Anibal Monsalve Salazar
 .''`. Debian GNU/Linux
: :' : Free Operating System
`. `'  http://debian.org/
  `-   http://v7w.com/anibal

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: