Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:34:47 +0200
From:      Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de>
To:        Mel Flynn <mel.flynn+fbsd.ports@mailing.thruhere.net>
Cc:        Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: pkg_libchk: a missing library is not detected
Message-ID:  <4A37BB97.8080405@bsdforen.de>
In-Reply-To: <200906151009.19181.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.ports@mailing.thruhere.net>
References:  <88733235@bb.ipt.ru> <4A36288D.2080402@bsdforen.de> <200906151009.19181.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.ports@mailing.thruhere.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mel Flynn wrote:
> On Monday 15 June 2009 02:55:09 Dominic Fandrey wrote:
>> Sorry for the late reply, this was auto-sorted into the ports@ mails
>> and drowned there.
>>
>> Boris Samorodov wrote:
> 
>>> As I understand pkg_upgrade does not preserve old libraries at
>>> /usr/local/lib/compat?
>> That's true. I consider this common approach a security risk.
> 
> It is a service interruption to delete libraries that are still used and this 
> can also lead to security problems.
> However, pkg_upgrade cannot ever hope to fix this problem, because the 
> buildservers do not unconditionally rebuild packages that mention the upgraded 
> port in LIB_DEPENDS, therefore it is better to leave these shared libraries 
> around.

To me something not working seems to be less of a security problem than
linking to a vulnerable library.

>> To ensure that you get the newest packages wipe
>> /usr/ports/packages/All.
> 
> Erm, the download time associated with that approach doesn't really speed up 
> things, nor does it guarantee that you will have working binaries if the port 
> maintainer forgot to version bump a port.

Well, you don't ever need them again after having them installed once, so I
don't see the problem. And at least from pointyhead I've never head
broken linking, even when the package was not version bumped, so I think
there's some kind of human intervention, or I was lucky.

Proper version bumping solves both problems, though and it is rarely forgotten
lately. So the issue is much smaller, now than it would have been a couple of
years ago. Also I do not see a way for my tool to handle this in any
acceptable way. If you've got an idea, go ahead and tell me. I actually
want to deal with as many problems as possible without user intervention.
It's about making life easier, after all.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A37BB97.8080405>