ethereal update

Marc Schwartz MSchwartz at
Wed Nov 12 02:47:23 UTC 2003

On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 19:48, Jim Hayward wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 16:45, Mike Burger wrote:
> > Maybe Fedora has a more recent version of Ethereal than is included in 
> > RHL9?
> The errata that was just released for RH 9 was ethereal-0.9.16 it
> replaced ethereal-0.9.13. The version that shipped with FC1 is
> ethereal-0.9.13. If you read the security announcement all versions <=
> 0.9.15 are effected. I rebuilt the RH 9 errata SRPM to use on Fedora.
> The coreutils issue, for which an errata was already issued more then a
> week ago for RHL releases has also not been addressed. Yesterday I
> grabbed the patches myself from the bugs-coreutils mailing list and CVS
> and ported them to the FC1 coreutils package.
> The Fedora FAQ does not guarantee timely patches. If you want guarantees
> the buying an RHEL product is required. I guess if we want timely
> patches for FC1 we are going to have to do it ourself.


Jim, I don't know that anyone is looking for guarantees. To the best of
my knowledge there are no guarantees with any open source community. On
the other hand, I don't know that the expectation is that Fedora is
"every man for himself".

I do believe that it is reasonable to have an expectation that such
things will ultimately be dealt with in a timely manner. If that is not
the case with Fedora, then we will loose people.

In the end, patterns of behavior will establish a baseline set of
expectations. Those expectations will synch with the needs of some and
not synch with the needs of others.

As I mentioned in my prior post this evening, I would envision that the
majority of us are willing to be patient as we work our way thru the
early stages of this new project. Three months or six months from now we
will hopefully look back at these things as relatively minor bumps in
the road.

There may be gaps in procedures at this point and there may be
insufficient developer resources to cover all the areas required. That
is understandable as we go thru this transition from RHL to Fedora.

That being said, the courtesy of replies from somebody within the
RH/Fedora leadership seems reasonable when key issues that will cause
people to either stay with Fedora or consider alternatives are clearly
upon us.

In times of transition, there is no such thing as over-communicating.

In the absence of information, people will eventually move to something
more predictable.

If the disposition is "We will get to it when we get to it", we may as
well look to alternatives. 

On the other hand, if the message is "Give us some time to work out the
procedures and get resources in place, because we want to do this
right", that is different.

It seems that clarifications would be reasonable.


More information about the fedora-list mailing list