From owner-freebsd-security Mon Dec 18 2:47:28 2000 From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 18 02:47:24 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from nevermind.kiev.ua (unknown [212.109.53.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FB2D37B404 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:47:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (from never@localhost) by nevermind.kiev.ua (8.11.1/8.11.1) id eBIAkYT52263; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:46:34 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from never) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:46:34 +0200 From: Nevermind To: Roman Shterenzon Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Security Update Tool.. Message-ID: <20001218124634.G607@nevermind.kiev.ua> References: <20001218112508.E607@nevermind.kiev.ua> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from roman@xpert.com on Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 12:38:46PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hello, Roman Shterenzon! On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 12:38:46PM +0200, you wrote: > On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Nevermind wrote: > > > > 5) check against /var/db/pkg/* (revisions, and before it was invented - > > > dates, yes, I know it's weak, but I've nothing to with it). > > > 6) depending on running mode, complain or upgrade (pkg_delete; pkg_install > > > -r) > > I think it would be much better if user will have an ability to choose if he > > wants to install binary update or to build it from source. > > hmm.. I can make it an option, but tell me, why? if user has some local > modifications, he'll prefer doing it by himself anyway, and by the time > advisory is released the binary probably exists already. Because, maybe user wants to give some specific options to compiler, or maybe he wants to audit code to know what does it fixes and so on, there are a lot of reasons to do this way. I think this should be an option, but, as for me the default should be binary update, so unexperienced users won't blame you and other FreeBSD developers about non-compiling due to his local gcc/autoconf/etc problems. For experienced, who wants to know how does it works updating from source is much more better. For example I use pkg_version(1) to determine what ports should be updated, and then manually audit patches and comments before real updating. I think I explained my position in clear way, even if my English is very bad. -- Alexandr P. Kovalenko http://nevermind.kiev.ua/ NEVE-RIPE To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message