On 02/07/2019 18:12, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 10:34:15 +0200, Richard Brown wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 08:29, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote:
Unfortunately as I stated somewhere else, at the moment in terms of security / bug fixes this isn't complete enough, there needs to be a mapping from patch name to bug number in the .changes file and this is somewhat harder to automate.
Hmm.. how it can be different? This is about *.changes, not about patchinfo. I don't understand why the automatic tracking of patch files can be worse.
It really sounds as if you mandate the submission of a hand-written tax declaration at each time -- even if the whole transactions have been tracked online -- just because the tax officer prefers reading the printed papers :)
Simon is talking about the fact that in addition to the patch itself, the motivation for the patch (such as the CVE#/BOO#/BSC# etc) needs to be tracked also. https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Patches_guidelines#Patch_markup_....
And as smart as any automated tool could be, I'm pretty sure it's not going to be able to read the mind of the contributors to know which bug/security ID was the motivation for adding a patch.
That's a different problem. You must put some bugzilla or CVE reference to the changelog, yes. That's mandatory.
However, the mapping between the patch file and the bugzilla/CVE doesn't have to rely on the changelog. Even from the current OBS, you can deduce the changelog entry revision ID as well as the revision ID of patch changes. That is, if the changelog entry contains a bug/CVE reference, this mapping can be obtained automatically from OBS, too.
The problem is some packages may have multiple bug/CVE fixes in one update, and often these bug numbers won't be referenced in the patch because commonly the patch is a direct copy or rebase from upstream and CVE numbers may exist yet or be applicable. Putting CVE's in patch filenames seems pretty common but isn't everywhere, on the other hand I don't recall seeing bugzilla numbers in patch names often. So we could mandate that patch names contain a CVE or bugzilla number where appropriate but I don't think that is the best solution. Teaching osc to ask so it knows could work, then it could do the generation, or packagers could continue listing bug + CVE next to patch names in the changelog. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org