Hi Anton,
Thanks for testing the patch.
I see you committed it by mistake while triaging; I reverted and
recommitted with proper authorship and commit information (linking this
thread).
Newly identified packages are ready to be triaged :)
Cheers!
Sylvain
On 21/04/2022 08:15, Anton Gladky wrote:
I have just tested the patch and it really produces much more packages
to be triaged and they are really reasonable!
I would propose to merge it into the master branch and start to use it.
Thanks for that!
Am Mi., 20. Apr. 2022 um 20:54 Uhr schrieb Sylvain Beucler
<b...@beuc.net <mailto:b...@beuc.net>>:
Hi Anton,
There's no need for a MR for this short lts-specific patch, and I
believe this list has better visibility for the LTS team than the
security-tracker salsa project (where lts-cve-triage.py resides).
Cheers!
Sylvain
On 20/04/2022 18:09, Anton Gladky wrote:
> Hi Sylvian,
>
> thanks for your work! Could you please create a merge request,
> so we can discuss this nice improvement there?
>
> Regards
>
> Am Mi., 20. Apr. 2022 um 17:33 Uhr schrieb Sylvain Beucler
> <b...@beuc.net <mailto:b...@beuc.net> <mailto:b...@beuc.net
<mailto:b...@beuc.net>>>:
>
> Now with the patch.
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 05:08:20PM +0200, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> > During my last front-desk week I noticed that we tend to
miss or
> delay
> > some buster security updates, in particular those that
come in point
> > releases, and a few batches of minor postponed fixes. See for
> > instance, 'dpdk' [1] or 'mailman' [2].
> >
> > Attached is a patch to 'bin/lts-cve-triage.py' to help
exhibit those
> > updates so we schedule them in dla-needed.txt. This
includes fixes
> > from stable/oldstable point releases or past DSAs, but
excludes
> issues
> > explicitly ignored, and old fixes from back when buster
was unstable.
> >
> > The current output is manageable (40-50 packages), and I
plan to trim
> > it further down by properly tagging <ignored> some no-dsa
issues that
> > are not meant to be fixed in stretch (see e.g. 'ark' [3]), and
> tagging
> > <end-of-life> a few others (e.g. 'node-*').
> >
> > At this point front-desk can proceed as usual using the
enhanced
> > 'lts-cve-triage.py' output. Front-desk may need to use
'no-dsa'
> > sparingly in the future, in favor of its 'postponed' and
'ignored'
> > sub-states [4], so as to better help the tool.
> >
> > What do you think?