bug filed against "distribution"
Reindl Harald
h.reindl at thelounge.net
Fri Aug 23 00:03:40 UTC 2013
Am 23.08.2013 01:50, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 22:05 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> since i have enough of bugzilla-mails as response of bugreports
>> containing referecnes to any Fedora version but not the reported
>> i consider this as bug in the distribution itself
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998035
>>
>> *at least* a "we do not fix this in F18 because <short explaination>"
>> or "it will most likely done in the next package-update for Fq8"
>> would be what anybody who is wasting his time for verify things
>> in the distribution and report bugs/guideline-violations should
>> be a response
>> ___________________________________
>>
>> hence i even do not understand why not every maintainer is reading
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#PIE and after
>> logout from the DE calls "checksec --proc-all" and *MUST enable*
>> in the guidelines is no opt-in
>>
>> as well as read things like
>> http://tk-blog.blogspot.co.at/2009/02/relro-not-so-well-known-memory.html
>>
>> thanks god, some of the packages i reported in the last months
>> are in the meantime fixed - but why maintainers and/or at least
>> QA do not care that the guidelines are respected?
>
> We don't have the resources for all this stuff, to be honest
which ressources?
the main question is why *each* maintainer itself does not
read the guidelines and check his own packages instead
waiting for QA and people reporting bugs
> I'd never seen any of the bugs you link in this mail before
clearly, only the maintainer takes notice (or not)
> There is no QA-matron which sees all bugs filed in Fedora, I'm afraid.
> There's a small group of monkeys running as fast as we can to keep up
> with release validation and update testing, pretty much
that is why i wrote this mail to remember each single maintainer
he should care itself if his packages are hardened and if they
must or should - with or without a specific bugreport should not
matter in this case
taht's why in doubt the whole distribution should be hardened
and this prelink-nonsense banned at all
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130823/29bd3fcb/attachment.sig>
More information about the devel
mailing list