a.hatzim at gmail.com
Wed Aug 9 21:29:37 PDT 2006
On Wed, Aug 09, at 05:12 Miguel Bazdresch wrote:
> Recently I saw a patch for a vulnerability in mutt 1.5.11. Wouldn't it
> be better to upgrade to 1.5.12?
I think that too and I am the one who submitted the patch!. :)
The first thing that we have to know,is that no one from the BLFS editors
is using mutt,except from Archaic who still uses the stable version though.
And its admirable for Dan Nicholson who did the last upgrade to mutt-1.5.11 some
months ago,because every little update to the Book needs time and personal effort.
It was one of these kind of things,if I recall correctly,that `push' :) me to
understand how much grateful we have to be to our editors.
The second thing.
I believe that it is one of our duties,as a free and open source software community,
to help the development by trying the new versions.
But for the BLFS Book that is another matter.
By using mutt 1.5.11 in the Book,the Blfs editors they already broke the basic rule.
"Only Stable Versions going into the Book"
That is why I submitted the patch,although (and if you look to the headers) I am
using the same version as you are and I still believe that it would better to upgrade
to the 1.5.12.
But there is always the third way.
If we really want to go a small step further,then we can always create a trusted user
group that could assist the L(B)FS developers.
I believe most of us,unless I am totally mistaken,they have a favorite application,that
following the development by monitoring the mailing lists, or trying the new versions
Personally I am following the development for Vim,mutt,elinks,fvwm,rxvt-unicode and zsh.
Three of them are in the Book.
If I knew that I could open a ticket and enter in a form the following -
Download MD5 sum:
Estimated disk space required:
Estimated build time:
-I could fill these values easily,I am doing it anyway in my scripts.
Then,the work for the editors would be much more easier and everyone will be happy!.
More information about the blfs-dev