On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 08:32:10AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Gaetan Nadon wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 13:57 +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > >> > It is clear that this is not a normal security breach, as this > >> commit is > >> > fully in line with the naming scheme used by fd.o. Plus, given the > >> > history of radeonhd, combined with who i think have root access, makes > >> > it seem quite likely that this was simply one of the people with > >> regular > >> > root access. > >> > > I had noticed this appalling commit, looked around and came to the same > > conclusion. > > I had also received an e-mail alerting me about this commit. This is not > > a good use of our time. > > > > The commit should actually be removed from the repository, or at least > > reverted, > > to save other people from wasting time on this. Their wiki states that > > radeonhd is deprecated, > > which is fine, but that does not mean it should be crippled. > > It's on a separate branch, not master. (Doesn't mean it's right, just > that it's not actually going to cripple anything or waste time for anyone > who doesn't ask for it.) > > The last update on the radeonhd master branch is 6 months ago.
Sure, it's a separate branch. Sure, you can easily remove the branch. But the base fact is: someone took advantage of his fd.o admin rights to do this. Luc Verhaegen. _______________________________________________ xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com