Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-commit - Re: [SM-Commit] binding PATCHLEVEL & SECURITY_PATCH [was: Re: GIT changes to master grimoire by Ladislav Hagara (c4f7997820fb7e9b2976a23ef34203ae35cf2775)]

sm-commit AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Source Mage code commit list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>
  • To: sm-commit AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Commit] binding PATCHLEVEL & SECURITY_PATCH [was: Re: GIT changes to master grimoire by Ladislav Hagara (c4f7997820fb7e9b2976a23ef34203ae35cf2775)]
  • Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 19:10:23 +0200

On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 07:18:35AM -0700, seth AT swoolley.homeip.net wrote:
> I suggest:
>
> $VERSION-$PATCHLEVEL.$SECURITY_PATCH with empty vars sugar'd to zero.

I'd suggest something like $VERSION [$PATCHLEVEL.$SECURITY_PATCH], for
the simple reason that '-' and '.' are often part of programs' upstream
version, '[' usually isn't.
It's stilly pretty readable imho:
arwed@Otherland:~$ gaze version apache2
Grimoire Section Spell Grimoire Version Installed Version
-------- ------- ----- ---------------- -----------------
test http apache2 2.0.58 [0.1] 2.0.58 [0.0]

Since it's just output for the user, having spaces in there shouldn't
hurt, but seperates upstream version from spell version very nicely.

> I agree that demanding a patchlevel bump with a security_patch is more than
> needed.

Agreed.

> Also (though I think this would simply add confusion) since both are
> monotonically
> increasing, a sum of the two would also be monotonically increasing, so it
> could be
> collapsed into one number for gaze display. I think the v-p.s format is
> simple
> enough.
>
> Seth
>
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 01:31:24PM +0300, Juuso Alasuutari wrote:
> > I want to get back to this discussion. What is the common opinion about
> > updating PATCHLEVEL when SECURITY_PATCH is updated? If I've understood
> > correctly, when Ladislav says "we should update..." he isn't referring to
> > a
> > standing policy, but suggesting a new one, no?
> >
> > His concern is valid IMHO. Seeing more information with `gaze version`
> > would
> > be nice, perhaps even useful :). But I also think that demanding a
> > PATCHLEVEL
> > bump when SECURITY_PATCH is upgraded is too much. Such things are easy to
> > forget, and it's enough to have to remember to reset PATCHLEVEL on
> > version
> > upgrades.
> >
> > I suggest we shouldn't try to artificially bind these two, but rather
> > display
> > both with `gaze version` - or if it feels like too much info, add an
> > option
> > to display the verbose version. For instance:
> >
> > VERSION=1.2 PATCHLEVEL=3 SECURITY_PATCH=4 == 1.2-3:4
> >
> >
> > On Thursday 03 August 2006 02:25, Ladislav Hagara wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > BTW, it could be fine if PATCHLEVEL was printed with gaze version (for
> > > example firefox 1.5.0.6-2). I think it is something in devel sorcery to
> > > print PATCHLEVEL but only with some special option. It could be printed
> > > with normal gaze version. If user reports problem with firefox 1.5.0.6
> > > we do not know what patches are applied, when (roughly) he/she cast it
> > > and so on. If he/she reports problem with version 1.5.0.6-2 we get more
> > > info. Moreover I would like to see these versions in our ledger. And for
> > > example highlight versions with security problems.
> > >
> > > When we update SECURITY_PATCH we should update also PATCHLEVEL to see
> > > the change in "gaze version".
> > > Example:
> > > VERSION=1.5.0.5 -> PATCHLEVEL=6 -> SECURITY_PATCH=4
> > > Upgrade to new version: VERSION=1.5.0.6 -> PATCHLEVEL=0 (not removing
> > > from DETAILS just set to 0) -> SECURITY_PATCH=4 (never reset)
> > > Patch with new feature: VERSION=1.5.0.6 -> PATCHLEVEL=1 ->
> > > SECURITY_PATCH=4
> > > Security fix: VERSION=1.5.0.6 -> PATCHLEVEL=2 -> SECURITY_PATCH=5
> > > Patch with new feature: VERSION=1.5.0.6 -> PATCHLEVEL=3 ->
> > > SECURITY_PATCH=5
> > > Upgrade to new version with security fix: VERSION=1.5.0.7 ->
> > > PATCHLEVEL=0 -> SECURITY_PATCH=6
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Just thinking how to bind SECURITY_PATCH=5 with PATCHLEVEL=2. Need to
> > > know from VERSION-PATCHLEVEL if it is security fixed or no.
> > > What about SECURITY_PATCH (or FIX)=5:1.5.0.6:2 ?
> > > Just idea ...
> >
> > --
> > Juuso Alasuutari
> > [[ Source Mage GNU/Linux ]]
>
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > SM-Commit mailing list
> > SM-Commit AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-commit
>
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Commit mailing list
> SM-Commit AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-commit
>

--
Arwed v. Merkatz Source Mage GNU/Linux developer
http://www.sourcemage.org




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page