On 01/02/17 17:03, Brian Stinson wrote:
On Feb 01 15:22, Laurentiu Pancescu wrote:
Since Fedora already makes the effort to provide the current Ansible releases in EPEL, it would be a pity not to take advantage of that.
We're planning to track what's going through CBS, which isn't necessarily the same lifecycle as EPEL
The PaaS SIG is releasing: http://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=14071
From a quick look at the changelog, that particular CBS build is missing the security fixes from 2.2.1.0 (CVE-2016-9587, CVE-2016-8647, CVE-2016-9587 and CVE-2016-8647). I understand that we'd probably like to have full control over when a version upgrade takes place (not to break things), but we'd need to backport the security fixes. Or isn't security an issue since cico is an isolated environment?
The main reason behind my proposal to adopt whatever Fedora packages was to get security fixes from the security team that handles EPEL and Fedora. For me, it's still unclear how fast are security fixes landing in SIG-provided packages.
But that's certainly your decision to make, I'm fine with it either way. :)
Never mind, I just found an up-to-date build in CBS, from Jan 18th, with all the security fixes. So they are apparently being closely tracked by the PaaS SIG.
http://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=15268
On 01/02/17 17:32, Laurentiu Pancescu wrote:
From a quick look at the changelog, that particular CBS build is missing the security fixes from 2.2.1.0 (CVE-2016-9587, CVE-2016-8647, CVE-2016-9587 and CVE-2016-8647). I understand that we'd probably like to have full control over when a version upgrade takes place (not to break things), but we'd need to backport the security fixes. Or isn't security an issue since cico is an isolated environment?
The main reason behind my proposal to adopt whatever Fedora packages was to get security fixes from the security team that handles EPEL and Fedora. For me, it's still unclear how fast are security fixes landing in SIG-provided packages.
But that's certainly your decision to make, I'm fine with it either way. :)
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Laurentiu Pancescu lpancescu@gmail.com wrote:
Never mind, I just found an up-to-date build in CBS, from Jan 18th, with all the security fixes. So they are apparently being closely tracked by the PaaS SIG.
Yes, we attempt to ship security fixes as soon as we possibly can (cc'ing Troy who can provide further info there). The main issue that we run into when using EPEL or Fedora is that once a package update ships, the previous version is no longer available (with the exception of the version shipped in the base repo), so there is no easy way to roll back without providing packages in our repo.
-- Jason DeTiberus
http://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=15268
On 01/02/17 17:32, Laurentiu Pancescu wrote:
From a quick look at the changelog, that particular CBS build is missing the security fixes from 2.2.1.0 (CVE-2016-9587, CVE-2016-8647, CVE-2016-9587 and CVE-2016-8647). I understand that we'd probably like to have full control over when a version upgrade takes place (not to break things), but we'd need to backport the security fixes. Or isn't security an issue since cico is an isolated environment?
The main reason behind my proposal to adopt whatever Fedora packages was to get security fixes from the security team that handles EPEL and Fedora. For me, it's still unclear how fast are security fixes landing in SIG-provided packages.
But that's certainly your decision to make, I'm fine with it either way. :)
Ci-users mailing list Ci-users@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/ci-users
-
Jason DeTiberus -
Laurentiu Pancescu