Re: .desktop -> bugzilla

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 18:24, Sander Vesik wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2002, Luis Villa wrote:
> 
> > Some parts of it are probably quite trivially acceptable upstream; some
> > parts are obsolete or badly in conflict with upstream; most relevantly,
> > no one actually runs what is upstream so overall it wouldn't help the
> > situation much. Hopefully that will change with 2.16, but there is no
> > way we can get in our changes for 2.16.
> 
> They may not be running the upstream, but at some point they will be
> runnning their own customisation of a newer version of upstream. If things
> are badly in conflict it more or less means we are stuck with the (afaik
> unmaintained) fork of bugzilla we have at the moment, and I fail to see
> anything whatsoever good about that. Does anybody even know what amount of
> security related bugfixes that have gone into bugzilla may be relevant to
> our version?

Don't worry, all these issues are well known, Sander. :) Once 2.16 is
released we'll be working hard to merge ourselves back to the mainline
and minimizing and sanitizing any forkage that remains; 2.16 will have a
number of things that will make it all much, much easier. Until that
release occurs there is little point to attempt to conduct a merge; once
that release occurs lots of things will get a lot better wrt the
problem.

As far as security, there are a large number of 'security' holes in what
we are running right now. They are basically all only a problem if you
depend on groups to hide things, which for all intents and purposes we
don't.

Luis