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

Re: On disttags (was: Choosing rpm-release for fc1 and fdr add-on rpms)

On May 18, 2004, Axel Thimm <Axel Thimm ATrpms net> wrote:

>> If you use disttags, and you have to patch a package such that the
>> R number goes in between two R numbers that are already out,

> Why would you do that? Say you have foo-1.2.3-4 and foo-1.2.3-5 and
> the fix comes out, you suggest foo-1.2.3-4.1 and
> foo-1.2.3-5.1. Wouldn't that make foo-1.2.3-5, one of the versions
> with the security vulnerability overwrite the fixed version from
> foo-1.2.3-4.1?

> E.g. I have a secury FC3 and use an (outdated) FC4 installation medium
> to upgrade my system. Until I fire up the updater postinstallation my
> box is vulnerable.

The assumption is that someone would immediately apply the FC4
updates, fixing the hole.

But think of fixes instead of security patches.

Consider that -5 had a change to make the package buildable on FC4,
that would break on FC3.

Issuing -5.1 (or 6, for that matter) for both FC3 and FC4 implies it's
newer than 5 for FC4.  Should someone depend on the patch that made it
buildable for FC4, and say so with a Requires: foo >= 1.2.3-5, issuing
the errata as -5.1.FC3 might incorrectly satisfy the requirement.

> As said, this is an old corner stone, and using dotted releases should
> be considered deprecated anyway.

I still think they should be used for the 0.<buildid> case, for *any*
extras that might ever make it to the core (i.e., any extras at all

Alexandre Oliva             http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva {redhat com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva {lsd ic unicamp br, gnu.org}

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