2:20 p.m.
As I'm sure everyone knows, the Red Hat Enterprise Linux errata for this is
already out, and marked as critical. No sign of a corresponding update for
any of the supported Fedora versions. Please let's not have this be another
one of those cases where Fedora's Firefox is vulnerable for weeks. It is,
frankly, embarrassing.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
2:34 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:36:04PM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
I'm working on a push right now. However I think some build
issues on ppc64
is preventing the fc6 to go out. Stransky is still working on it.
Glad to hear it. Thanks for the update.
And mark this down under yet another reason to move ppc to secondary arch
status. :)
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
2:36 p.m.
On Monday 26 February 2007 15:20, Matthew Miller wrote:
As I'm sure everyone knows, the Red Hat Enterprise Linux errata
for this is
already out, and marked as critical. No sign of a corresponding update for
any of the supported Fedora versions. Please let's not have this be another
one of those cases where Fedora's Firefox is vulnerable for weeks. It is,
frankly, embarrassing.
I'm working on a push right now. However I think some build issues on ppc64
is preventing the fc6 to go out. Stransky is still working on it.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
2:36 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:34:57PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> I'm working on a push right now. However I think some build
issues on
> ppc64 is preventing the fc6 to go out. Stransky is still working on it.
Glad to hear it. Thanks for the update.
And mark this down under yet another reason to move ppc to secondary arch
status. :)
Actually -- is it possible to put updates into updates/testing even if
there's build problems on any specific arch? That might be a way to approach
this in the future. (Or this time, even, if the ppc64 build issue can't be
resolved quickly.)
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
2:44 p.m.
On Monday 26 February 2007 15:36, Matthew Miller wrote:
Actually -- is it possible to put updates into updates/testing even
if
there's build problems on any specific arch? That might be a way to
approach this in the future. (Or this time, even, if the ppc64 build issue
can't be resolved quickly.)
Eeew. While technically there is, I'd rather not go down this road.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
2:48 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:44:35PM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Actually -- is it possible to put updates into updates/testing
even if
> there's build problems on any specific arch? That might be a way to
> approach this in the future. (Or this time, even, if the ppc64 build issue
> can't be resolved quickly.)
Eeew. While technically there is, I'd rather not go down this road.
I understand your Release Ninja disgust. :) However, from the
user-supporting point of view it sucks to completely hold up security
updates for platform specific build problems.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
2:54 p.m.
On Monday 26 February 2007 15:48, Matthew Miller wrote:
I understand your Release Ninja disgust. :) However, from the
user-supporting point of view it sucks to completely hold up security
updates for platform specific build problems.
Yes it does. It also sucks for the ppc users to tell them right now that they
don't matter as much to us.
If we can't get this resolved today/tomorrow, we'll probably have to look at
something like doing the other arches first.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
3:04 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 03:54:25PM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
Yes it does. It also sucks for the ppc users to tell them right now
that
they don't matter as much to us.
Well, it's not like you're not working on it. I'd say the same thing if it
were x86_64. Or, uh, if it built on x86_64 but not i386.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
3:05 p.m.
>>>> "JK" == Jesse Keating
<jkeating(a)redhat.com> writes:
JK> It also sucks for the ppc users to tell them right now that they
JK> don't matter as much to us.
I'm having trouble getting from:
A) We're sorry, but currently we're currently not able to build the
updated firefox on PPC64. We've released it to other architectures
now and are still working on getting it to build on all of them.
to:
B) You don't matter as much to us.
This isn't about secondary arches. If the roles were reversed and it
build fine on PPC64 but not i386, I'd advocate shipping it for PPC64.
- J<
6291
days inactive
6291
days old
security@lists.fedoraproject.org
8 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Jesse Keating -
Matthew Miller