Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Wireshark LTS branches
From: Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 10:51:15 -0400
On 04/17/14 23:11, Guy Harris wrote:
On Apr 17, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Bálint Réczey <balint () balintreczey hu> wrote:Well, last time I brought this up the project decision was to allow minor improvements, too: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.network.wireshark.devel/15323 The best solution for me as a maintainer at Debian would be limiting the changes to security fixes conforming to the policy: https://www.debian.org/security/faq#policy , but as a second-best option I could live with the special LTS branches.The best solution for many end-users would probably be *not* to limit the changes to security fixes - if we have a fix for a mis-dissection, they'd probably want that, for example.
I agree. I push the stable release micro versions to my users because it's often important to have bug fixes too.
Fedora appears to be picking up the micro-releases as-is (Fedora 18 actually even upgraded from 1.8.3 to 1.10.2; hopefully this means they've come to think of Wireshark as a "desktop app" like Firefox which must be reasonably up-to-date in order to be useful).
Given that, having separate "security fixes only" branches, for packagers and users who *only* want security fixes, and support branches, for packagers and users who also want those bug fixes that we deem "appropriate" for the support branches, is probably the right answer.
... And on the other hand we have RHEL/CentOS which seem to be manually applying patches: 6.0 came with Wireshark 1.8.10-4 (the "-4" being their nano-version) and the latest update appears to be 1.8.10-7.
The problem, I think, with having "security fixes only" branches is that different distributions pick different starting points--probably based on when they ship. Balint/Debian, for example, wants a branch off of 1.8.2 but it appears RHEL/CentOS would like one off of 1.8.10. Obviously this doesn't scale well [for us] so presumably we'd only do "master-lts-1.8.0" [at least for future versions]?
Another aspect is I'd be willing to bet that RHEL doesn't apply just security fixes but also bug fixes that their (paying) customers have run into--so they might not use our lts branch anyway.
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Wireshark LTS branches Bálint Réczey (Apr 16)
- Re: Wireshark LTS branches Gerald Combs (Apr 16)
- Re: Wireshark LTS branches Bálint Réczey (Apr 17)
- Re: Wireshark LTS branches Anders Broman (Apr 17)
- [BMR #93974] ipmi-trace dissector Dmitry Bazhenov (Apr 17)
- Re: Wireshark LTS branches Evan Huus (Apr 17)
- Re: Wireshark LTS branches Bálint Réczey (Apr 17)
- Re: Wireshark LTS branches Evan Huus (Apr 17)
- Re: Wireshark LTS branches Guy Harris (Apr 17)
- Re: Wireshark LTS branches Jeff Morriss (Apr 18)
- Re: Wireshark LTS branches Bálint Réczey (Apr 17)
- Re: Wireshark LTS branches Gerald Combs (Apr 16)