[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [suse-security] Tripwire Segmentation Fault error...



Quoting Thomas Biege <thomas@xxxxxxx>:
>
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Stefano Bertotti wrote:
>
> > Dear Sir, we are near to SuSE 9.1 without official solutions for this
> > problem in SuSE 9.0 ...
> >
> > You have never explained the real nature of the problem.
> >
> > Are You supporting the porting solutions from 8.2 proposed in this list
> > ?
> >
> > If the answer is "yes" can You publish the official patch on the
> > onlineupdate servers, otherwise can You explain this incredible support
> > delay...?
>
> I think you want to write to security@xxxxxxx .
>
> Nevertheless, the bug appears due to an interaction with the binutils
> package. Our maintainer is working on an update (which isn't that easy).
>

Rather than have him 'working' on it and leaving the bulk of the SuSE community
without the benefit of tripwire, why don't you take the copy of the tripwire
rpm from 8.2 and copy it into the 9.0 branch so that people can actually USE it
without having to manually go around the normal update system to get it.

It's all well and good to say it doesn't like our binutils or doesn't want to
compile with gcc 3.x and to be "working" on it.  However, that does the rest of
us absolutely no good whatsoever.

You guys seem to be forgetting the first rule: It has to work.  Having a program
that actually works in FAR more important than binutil and compiler purity.

What's the point of a distribution if I have to work AROUND it to get things
done?  If I wanted to fight my operating system every step of the way, I'd run
Windows.  SuSE, of course, is far from that level.  But the mentality behind
how you guys are dealing with tripwire is just like Microsoft.  You seem to
care more about doing it your way than actually releasing something that works.

-- 
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands, e-mail: suse-security-help@xxxxxxxx
Security-related bug reports go to security@xxxxxxx, not here