Opinions sougth: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard? - Debian

This is a discussion on Opinions sougth: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard? - Debian ; Andreas Metzler wrote: > Adeodato Simó wrote: > [...] >> dlocate has been fixed, so I think we could upload to unstable >> already? > > I think so, I intend to upload findutils on saturday or sunday. Please, take ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 43 of 43

Thread: Opinions sougth: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?

  1. Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?

    Andreas Metzler wrote:
    > Adeodato Simó wrote:
    > [...]
    >> dlocate has been fixed, so I think we could upload to unstable
    >> already?

    >
    > I think so, I intend to upload findutils on saturday or sunday.


    Please, take care to upload findutils before mlocate to avoid
    mistake with aptitude due to #452409
    ("aptitude install mlocate" without the new findutils available
    will remove the essential package findutils without a warning...)

    Best regards,
    Vincent

    --
    Vincent Danjean GPG key ID 0x9D025E87 vdanjean@debian.org
    GPG key fingerprint: FC95 08A6 854D DB48 4B9A 8A94 0BF7 7867 9D02 5E87
    Unofficial pacakges: http://www-id.imag.fr/~danjean/deb.html#package
    APT repo: deb http://perso.debian.org/~vdanjean/debian unstable main


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  2. Re: can Breaks be used already? (was Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?)

    Mike Hommey writes ("Re: can Breaks be used already? (was Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?)"):
    > Maybe with the new symbols thing in dpkg-shlibdeps, the new package
    > installation toolstack would not depend on the new libc... but there's
    > no guarantee for that, unfortunately :-/


    I still think the right answer is officially-supported backports of the
    upgrade tools, built against the previous release.

    Ian.


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  3. Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?

    Joey Hess writes ("Re: Opinions sought: mlocate appropriate for Priority: standard?"):
    > Given the security history of slocate, and since mlocate has a similar
    > design from a security POV, it would be good to get a thurough audit of
    > mlocate, perhaps trying some of the same holes. At least it doesn't seem
    > to be vulnerable to the attack described in CVE-2007-0227.


    I think setgid is entirely the wrong approach here. And these kind of
    vulnerabilities are an inevitable consequence.

    Ian.


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3