Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:57:56 -0400 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: Oliver Brandmueller <ob@e-Gitt.NET>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BIND update? Message-ID: <200807101457.m6AEvvlD036748@lava.sentex.ca> In-Reply-To: <20080710102955.GA6902@e-Gitt.NET> References: <20080710094006.GX6902@e-Gitt.NET> <20080710094451.GS62764@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20080710095809.GA59288@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <4875E1B6.3010407@delphij.net> <20080710102955.GA6902@e-Gitt.NET>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
At 06:29 AM 7/10/2008, Oliver Brandmueller wrote:
>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,
> > e.g. we want to minimize the change, we need to analyst the impact
> > (FWIW the security fix would negatively affect heavy traffic sites)
> > and document it (i.e. the security advisory), and we want to make the
> > change a one-time one (for instance, shall we patch libc's resolver as
> > well?), so rushing into a "presumably patched" state would not be a
> > very good solution.
>
>I understand the reasons and that surely needs to be taken into account.
>Does that imply that the FreeBSD project got the information later than
>f.e. M$ or Debian, who are usually not really known for coming up too
>fast with such fixes?
Even with all the extra time and resources MS had, look at the
breakage their fix has caused.
---Mike
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200807101457.m6AEvvlD036748>