On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:52:29AM +0200, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
On 19/07/2013 Daniel Veillard wrote:
>One of my specific request therew is make sure that they link to the system
>libraries instead of relying on the embedded version used e.g. for
>Windows build. Very specifically make sure libxml2 etc... is not
>provided by static version inside but uses the system one (so we don't
>have to push Apache OpenOffice too if there is a libxml2 security errata !)
This is a guideline and we will follow it as closely as possible,
but we do still have some incompatibilities (meaning that OpenOffice
needs specially patched versions of some dependencies, or older
versions of libraries) which means that we won't be able to solve
the problem completely (well, patches welcome).
As for the security errata, I understand the technical point and I
agree with it, but in practice I wouldn't be too much concerned
about it. OpenOffice released only one out-of-cycle security update
in the last two years, and only three new versions in the same
timeframe. While the release cycle is expected to become shorter,
OpenOffice is still very far from releasing too often.
Being the guy who handle the security errata for libxml2, I
know that we avoided pushing openoffice a number of time in the past
because our packagers and devels spent an awful lot of time removing
copies of system libraries out of OpenOffice ! That game lasted over
a decade, I don't want a "new" packaging forgetting all that work, just
because of simplicity, negligence or "I'm not too worried".
Want to put OpenOffice back in, sure, but play by the rules !
Daniel Veillard | Open Source and Standards, Red Hat
veillard(a)redhat.com | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
| virtualization library http://libvirt.org/