Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:11:32 +0000
From:      rplace <rplace@vivaldi.net>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Cc:        Ben Woods <woodsb02@gmail.com>
Subject:   Re: why pkgs with =?utf-8?Q?vulnerabilitie?= =?utf-8?Q?s_on_quarterly_aren=E2=80=99t?= updated
Message-ID:  <20171127201130.GA1022@03c0.comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAOc73CBvnzN_uO=01meukMYBOErYhHCDeVRvkdPqHkM=svD7FA@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <20171125162116.GA7147@03c0.comcast.net> <CAOc73CBvnzN_uO=01meukMYBOErYhHCDeVRvkdPqHkM=svD7FA@mail.gmail.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 12:48:41AM +0000, Ben Woods wrote:
> Quartlery branches are definitely supposed to receive security updates.
> Sometime people forget, and if this is the case you absolutely should
> remind them. Ideally this would just be the minimal update to address the
> vulnerability, without bringing new features. However, patches do not
> always exist, and sometime this is not easy.
> 
> Where security issues have been addressed in the head branch, but not the
> quarterly branch, I recommend:
> - checking if the commit to head had a MFH request (merge from head)...
> perhaps the committer is just waiting for the approval to merge the commit
> to quarterly.
> - if there was a bug report, check if it has been closed or if it is still
> open awaiting the MFH (there is a flag in bugzilla that can be set to show
> this is the status).
> - if a number of days (closer to a week) has passed since it was addressed
> in head and it still hasn’t been addressed in quarterly, or there was no
> MFH commentary to suggest it would be addressed in quarterly, then I
> suggest either commenting on the bug report that was related to the commit
> to state the MFH has been forgotten (reopen the bug), or raise a new bug
> report, ensuring that the person who made the commit to head gets
> automatically assigned as the assignee after raising or add them to the CC
> list manually.

Thanks. The maintainer for firefox-esr said that the MFH was denied by
the relevant authority, ports-secteam or something like that.
I presume it wanted new versions of libraries or something.

It became clear to me that quarterly is all right for a professional
system running some services, but that latest becomes necessary for a
personal machine.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20171127201130.GA1022>