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. >> >>Changes: >> 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 >>>>risk. >>> >>>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" Regards, Anibal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux : :' : Free Operating System `. `' http://debian.org/ `- http://v7w.com/anibal
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature