Quoting Thomas Biege
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Stefano Bertotti wrote:
Dear Sir, we are near to SuSE 9.1 without official solutions for this problem in SuSE 9.0 ...
You have never explained the real nature of the problem.
Are You supporting the porting solutions from 8.2 proposed in this list ?
If the answer is "yes" can You publish the official patch on the onlineupdate servers, otherwise can You explain this incredible support delay...?
I think you want to write to security@suse.de .
Nevertheless, the bug appears due to an interaction with the binutils package. Our maintainer is working on an update (which isn't that easy).
Rather than have him 'working' on it and leaving the bulk of the SuSE community without the benefit of tripwire, why don't you take the copy of the tripwire rpm from 8.2 and copy it into the 9.0 branch so that people can actually USE it without having to manually go around the normal update system to get it. It's all well and good to say it doesn't like our binutils or doesn't want to compile with gcc 3.x and to be "working" on it. However, that does the rest of us absolutely no good whatsoever. You guys seem to be forgetting the first rule: It has to work. Having a program that actually works in FAR more important than binutil and compiler purity. What's the point of a distribution if I have to work AROUND it to get things done? If I wanted to fight my operating system every step of the way, I'd run Windows. SuSE, of course, is far from that level. But the mentality behind how you guys are dealing with tripwire is just like Microsoft. You seem to care more about doing it your way than actually releasing something that works.