On 12 Dec 1997, Rob Browning wrote: > The problem is that maybe *you* know what packages those are, but most > users expect to be able to upgrade without major system services > breaking if dpkg/dselect doesn't indicate that there's a problem. > Your approach would cause silent failures. > > Imagine that (given the eariler example) the ISP upgrades the stuff, > then a week later realizes that someone may be trying to hack their > system. The go to "who" (and friends) to see what's going on, and > they get an empty listing. This is going to cause someone to need > heartburn medication. > > (Hope I've got my facts straight and I'm not overlooking something > obvious.)
I admit this is a potential problem, but I don't see ISPs as a major target for this kind of "minor upgrade". From what I can tell, a majority of people who want "just a few" packages from hamm have small home installations, not large userbases. For these people, utmp corruption may not matter as they're the only ones ever on their system. In addition, the packages upgraded aren't usually utmp related ones, but programs like your mailreader, or Gimp or whateevr (although I must admit that X is probably a common upgrade here, and xterm/rxvt would cause a problem). If we plaster the upgrade notes with large signs warning about said corruption, we still leave a path for those to which it doesn't matter. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
