Re: Why is the STABLE branch not so stable anymore?
On 11-Jun-2001, Jordan Hubbard wrote: > Hmmm. It seems like this thread has degraded to simple > project-bashing so I'll not be a party to keeping it on life support > any longer. I don't think this is the case at all. For whatever it's worth, it doesn't appear that the stability of -stable is the same priority it used to be. It's hardly project-bashing to raise concerns of this nature on the -stable mailing list. > Suffice it to say that people make mistakes and of far > greater importance is whether or not they realize it when they do and > correct those mistakes. The pam/ssh suckage was backed out by Mark, > with profuse apologies for his mistake, and the rest of the reports > we've already covered so I think we can just let that rest. The fact is, Mark's back-out of his earlier libpam commit created a brand-new breakage. It's not even a complicated or esoteric problem, a simple "make clean" on a fresh cvsup fails. I'm quite appreciative that Mark has been responsive to my emails and others to the list, but I'm frustrated that it took six hours and at least that many users to detect an error which should have been spotted prior to being committed. > In fact, users in your category are always recommended to stick with > the releases and not upgrade until a new one comes out so I'm not > even sure why we're having this conversation in the first place. Exactly what category of user am I? According to the handbook: "If you are a commercial user or someone who puts maximum stability of their FreeBSD system before all other concerns, you should consider tracking FreeBSD-STABLE." >From my perspective, as a commercial user who puts the maximum stability of my freebsd systems before all other concerns, the level of respect and forethought being put into -stable commits is not at the same level it has traditionally been. This isn't project bashing so much as it is a plea to the freebsd core team to be mindful of what "stable" means to those of us out here in the userbase. -- |David McNett |To ensure privacy and data integrity this message has| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|been encrypted using dual rounds of ROT-13 encryption| |Austin, TX USA|Please encrypt all important correspondence with PGP!| To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Re: Why is the STABLE branch not so stable anymore?
On 11-Jun-2001, Jordan Hubbard wrote: > Short answer: -stable builds fine. Let me reinforce Russel's mail to the list. As of right now, it's not building fine. libpam won't even "make clean" on a brand new box with no /usr/obj/* and no /etc/make.conf at all. I can't speak to the earlier breakage mentioned, but the list traffic seems to support Mixtim's complaint. -- ____ |David McNett |To ensure privacy and data integrity this message has| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|been encrypted using dual rounds of ROT-13 encryption| |Austin, TX USA|Please encrypt all important correspondence with PGP!| PGP signature
Re: adding "noschg" to ssh and friends
On 30-May-2001, Karsten W. Rohrbach wrote: > there are some real high-impact tweaks to be a little bit safer from > rootkits. one of them is mounting /tmp noexec. drawback: you got to > remount it exec for make installworld. An alternate approach (which I use) is: # make TMPDIR=/some/other/dir installworld -- ____ |David McNett |To ensure privacy and data integrity this message has| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|been encrypted using dual rounds of ROT-13 encryption| |Austin, TX USA|Please encrypt all important correspondence with PGP!| PGP signature
Re: Upcoming rc.conf changes not loading certain currently loaded daemons
On 24-Aug-2000, Francisco Reyes wrote: > On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:11:03 +0200 (SAST), fingers wrote: > >but the first thing I do is disable them and kill 'em dead. > > Perhaps this could be an installation flag. Personally, I think the change is a wonderful move. I frankly find it to be a bit of an embarassment to see FreeBSD installing out of the box with such protocols as telnet and rexec running by default. Ideally, I'd like to see the installer properly force the determination of USA_RESIDENT and install the appropriate rsaref / librsaintl libraries so a fresh install could sshd_enable="YES" in /etc/defaults/rc.conf If someone insists on using those antiquated and unsafe protocols like telnet and the r* services, we should at least make sure they're doing it on purpose and not just leaving the defaults in place out of ignorance. -- ________ |David McNett |To ensure privacy and data integrity this message has| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|been encrypted using dual rounds of ROT-13 encryption| |Birmingham, AL USA|Please encrypt all important correspondence with PGP!| To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
