From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 6 15:07:25 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1819816A405 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:07:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chrcoluk@gmail.com) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.191]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D09813C471 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:07:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chrcoluk@gmail.com) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id m19so179879nfc for ; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 07:07:23 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=rKo3Z628UE2OBQjM6MTQcIZ+n6+gnwc+f/3sBJM0I9GeWMSip6D3ZXuGYtp70O6/5yFz0Ov74k/A3ij/m9X3Di/Wjqm9Es/r2ACNVjUQz0TG8T4g83DxsWVRz/XN6vDmyQSSrymiklckWODaeLOMXs/w9aLk/cwZxH9EcwZP4+o= Received: by 10.82.105.13 with SMTP id d13mr1848736buc.1170774441658; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 07:07:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.82.134.15 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 07:07:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3aaaa3a0702060707s4b90dd0agef214698a5613e6b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:07:21 +0000 From: Chris To: "Remko Lodder" In-Reply-To: <20070206144738.GW11375@elvandar.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200702012319.l11NJJ7r065204@drugs.dv.isc.org> <45C2E612.5080002@FreeBSD.org> <45C3B56E.3060706@rxsec.com> <45C3DCA5.3070908@FreeBSD.org> <45C46EE5.4060404@obluda.cz> <200702031801.l13I1w2p096068@fire.jhs.private> <3aaaa3a0702060521t6586d67ag9352d81b8efe6f21@mail.gmail.com> <20070206144738.GW11375@elvandar.org> Cc: Dan Lukes , freebsd-security@freebsd.org, "Julian H. Stacey" , Deb Goodkin Subject: Re: Support for 5.x (Was: Re: What about BIND 9.3.4 in FreeBSD in base system ?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:07:25 -0000 On 06/02/07, Remko Lodder wrote: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 01:21:44PM +0000, Chris wrote: > > On 03/02/07, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > think you hit the nail bang on the head, I am one such person who > > tried to submit a bug causing crashes and have found a lack of > > enthusiasm to get the bug fixed. One thing I have noticed about 6.x > > is there is many features that 5.x doesnt have, so it looks clear > > there is lots of activity in working on new code but little activity > > in fixing bugs and working on stability. > > Hello, > > I feel poked by this, and it saddens me that this is the reply we > get. I know that we aren't really up to date with feedback on PR > tickets, and that a lot of tickets are stale and never looked at > (I have several of those on my name as well). The sad reason is though > that we are all busy, some of us cannot do more then we can and some > of us (the bugbusting teams) try to house keep the tickets as much > as possible, but that is not always possible with the limited resources > we have. If this bugs you enough; you are always invited to help us > making sure the ticking flow can be handled. > > > > > Example I can give is I noticed freebsd 5.4 has limited support for > > nforce 4 ide, this is year 2005 code, and there was a patch to > > complete the support so sata was supported. Checking the same src > > file on freebsd 6.2 has all references to nforce 4 removed, the patch > > was apperently close to been commited to 6-current at the time so I > > can only guess that they got bored of trying to make it stable so > > simply removed the code to not delay 6.0 release and this explains why > > my hardware works better in 5.x then 6.x on this particular server > > using nforce4. > > Releng_5 is a different working base then 6_x, things that are in 6 > are not always in 5 and visa versa. Can you give me a clear example > of what was removed and what should be there so that I can have a > look at this and perhaps even implement it? If you have a ticket number > that would be even more great so that I can see the audit-trial. > > > > > > In general I have noticed a decline in robustness and stability as > > freebsd release numbers go up, freebsd 4.x was very stable and its not > > hard to see why people refuse to move from it, 5.x was somewhat less > > robust but I think 5.x is more stable then 6.x, 6.x appears to have > > some compatbility problems with hardware and is more picky with what > > hardware it works well with. > > > > If support is planning to be dropped to 5.x early in its life (only at > > .5 release) then it is dissapointing and a sign that there is no > > motivation to work on old code and old bugs. I wonder if a paypal > > slush fund where people who use freebsd can donate to and this slush > > fund is then used to pay devs who fix pr's oldest first of course > > would be effective. > > Obviously you can claim you can do better, please show us, we will > punish you after time with a commit bit and then you can help us out > all the time! Seriously though; the various development paths make > the RELENG_5 branch a development branch and 6 a stable branch. > No one ever said that 5.x was going to live long because of the > transition phase between 4.x and 6.x. > > Given your feedback I expect to see you on freebsd-bugbusters > pretty soon (the mailinglist) to help clear the old PR's and > make sure everything is OK. > > Yes I understand that my tone is a bit harsh, but I think the > statements above are emotional, not based on the reality though, > the teams work very hard to please everyone, but we have limited > resources and cannot do everything. It is rather easy to go pick > on the teams, but that is not somethign that will help solve the > problem. Actually helping out will, so I'd request Chris and > others to help the bugbusting teams and if possible other teams > as well, then and only then we can try to be a brave schoolkid. > > Thanks. > > > > > Chris > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > -- > Kind regards, > > Remko Lodder ** remko@elvandar.org > FreeBSD ** remko@FreeBSD.org > > /* Quis custodiet ipsos custodes */ > I would if I could code unfortenatly I cant, I only found out about the nforce 4 been present in freebsd 5.x yesterday after someone found the old post and link to the patch when we were discussing it. I have just submitted a post the hardware mail list about it and it has a link to the patch and post from 2004. I do feel a bit upset that freebsd 6.x is been pushed so much as 5.x seems to be a burden on the developers when I have about half a dozen machines in production using 5.x and another half a dozen using 6.x and the 5.x machines are causing the least problems, this is from my own experience, the only benefits I am seeing from 6.x is the extra features and performance. I have 1 freebsd 4.x machine in production and that blows both 5.x and 6.x away for performance and stability but is of course missing many new features. Back on topic with bind I would have thought it would go in both 5.x and 6.x but I do agree that maybe just the security fixes is enough and if someone wants the entire new version they can install from ports. Chris