From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 10 10:29:56 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82844106568A for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:29:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ob@gruft.de) Received: from obh.snafu.de (v6.gruft.de [IPv6:2001:1560:2342::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35D158FC2A for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:29:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ob@gruft.de) Received: from ob by obh.snafu.de with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1KGtPP-000BYT-8j for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:29:55 +0200 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:29:55 +0200 From: Oliver Brandmueller To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20080710102955.GA6902@e-Gitt.NET> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <20080710094006.GX6902@e-Gitt.NET> <20080710094451.GS62764@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20080710095809.GA59288@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <4875E1B6.3010407@delphij.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DXIF1lRUlMsbZ3S1" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4875E1B6.3010407@delphij.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: Oliver Brandmueller Subject: Re: BIND update? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:29:56 -0000 --DXIF1lRUlMsbZ3S1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 03:17:26AM -0700, Xin LI wrote: > Speaking as my own: Base system needs more conservative QA process,=20 > e.g. we want to minimize the change, we need to analyst the impact=20 > (FWIW the security fix would negatively affect heavy traffic sites)=20 > and document it (i.e. the security advisory), and we want to make the=20 > change a one-time one (for instance, shall we patch libc's resolver as=20 > well?), so rushing into a "presumably patched" state would not be a=20 > very good solution. I understand the reasons and that surely needs to be taken into account.=20 Does that imply that the FreeBSD project got the information later than=20 f.e. M$ or Debian, who are usually not really known for coming up too=20 fast with such fixes? - Olli --=20 | Oliver Brandmueller | Offenbacher Str. 1 | Germany D-14197 Berlin | | Fon +49-172-3130856 | Fax +49-172-3145027 | WWW: http://the.addict.de/ | | Ich bin das Internet. Sowahr ich Gott helfe. | | Eine gewerbliche Nutzung aller enthaltenen Adressen ist nicht gestattet! | --DXIF1lRUlMsbZ3S1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkh15KMACgkQiqtMdzjafymA3wCgqGFZnnD1fRmWsbt/K857a4WC XQgAn0wdK2PigSvDdyPUcDgiihphHBzo =0bb7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --DXIF1lRUlMsbZ3S1--