2 ms·
> If there's a security fix, I'd love to have `apt update` apply that fix for everything, and not worry about verifying that everything that might have statical
by rodgerd 6y ago
> If there's a security fix, I'd love to have `apt update` apply that fix for everything, and not worry about verifying that everything that might have statically linked it gets updated too. Although ideally the latter would be easy anyway.
While it is one failure mode, and a well-understood one, to end up finding that you've been owned by an application with a hidden dependency that had a security hole that you didn't know about, the "apt update" means that your ability to fix a security hole is now waiting on the time it takes you to update thousands or tends of thousands of programs, 99% of which you don't and never will use, against the One True Copy of the library.
- macksd 6y agoDo security fixes break general usage of stable APIs often? That is not my experience. I mean that's the whole point of semantic versioning: you should be able follow a maintenance release line (or even a minor release line) without any incompatibilities. I don't know that I can remember an unknown security issue or other critical fix, certainly not many, where I've had to wait for a major release or break the contract.