Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 13 Oct 2004 02:35:55 +0200
From:      Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com>
To:        Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Cc:        Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk>
Subject:   Re: Email nagging, was: Re: Ports with version numbers going backwards: graphics/gd,japanese/gd, ukrain...
Message-ID:  <D7DCBA58-1CAF-11D9-A5A5-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
In-Reply-To: <20041013000951.GA81344@xor.obsecurity.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris Kennaway wrote:

>> Uhm, I wonder why you are fine with hourly `INDEX build failed'
>> messages, but oppose those addressing PORTVERSION. Any crucial
>> difference I'm missing?
>
> One thing is that most users don't care about a particular port that
> had a version number go backwards, but lots of people care when they
> can't build an index.

I wonder why...? If the INDEX is so important to so many people, maybe 
we should fix it so that it is buildable even when a single port breaks? 
Not that I don't value the INDEX as a great QA tool, but I wonder why 
lots of people need to build their own INDEX.

> Indeed, it's hard to even notice the former unless you look for it,
> but index failures kind of jump out at you and tend to generate lots
> of support email :)

I've seem machines that didn't update bind9 for months after the 
portversion went backwards. Hard to notice, but important 
nevertheless... The point is that I might notice quickly when the INDEX 
is broken, but not much harm is done. OTOH port versions going backwards 
hinder tools like portupgrade to work correctly, and make it impossible 
to make entries in the vulnerability database.
Anyway, you should make a decision whether the INDEX is a robust tool or 
a sensitive QA instrument, but it shouldn't be both.

-Oliver



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D7DCBA58-1CAF-11D9-A5A5-00039312D914>