On 31-03-2024 20:54, Christopher Klooz wrote:
> On 31/03/2024 20.52, Christopher Klooz wrote:
>>
>> On 31/03/2024 20.21, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 31 2024 at 09:56:04 AM -05:00:00, Michael Catanzaro
<mcatanzaro(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm really frustrated with our communication regarding this issue.
Does anybody know who can fix this?
>>>
>>> The Fedora Magazine article has been fixed (thanks!).
>>>
>> "*Fedora Linux 40 branched users (i.e. pre-Beta) likely received the
potentially vulnerable /5.6.0-2.fc40/ build
<
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4417db3376> if the system
updated between March 2nd and March 6th*. Fedora Linux 40 Beta users only using stable
repositories are NOT impacted. Fedora Linux 39 and 38 users are also NOT impacted."
>>
>> -> only pre-beta, not beta, affected
>> -> F40 beta using stable NOT impacted (without challenging the previously
distributed assumption that testing is disabled by default)
>>
>> That's still the same false information, isn't it?
> Justin just has shown up in discourse. I suggested to get in touch with you, Adam or
Kevin since he seemed to be convinced the article is fine as it is. When I refresh the
article, it still seems to be unchanged. Is the update you mean already online Michael?
I clarified what's wrong with Justin in a DM on Matrix. He was on the same garden
path as I was regarding "Beta release" vs. "Final release".
There will be another update to the article.
-- Sandro
--
Given the issues we had in the recent days in the communications between Fedora
Magazine, a discussion if and/or how to use it in CVE handling has evolved in Fedora
Discussions. I have just moved this into a dedicated topic, in case you want to add your
perspectives: