Re: bug#26109: [PATCH 3/7] gnu: Add dcmtk.

[Kei Kebreau <kei@openmailbox.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1729 bytes --]

John Darrington <jmd@gnu.org> writes:

> [CC guix-devel@gnu.org]
>
> So we have to make a choice:
>
> 1. Package a released program with a known vulnerability; or
> 2. Package an unreleased git snapshot.
>
> Which is the lesser evil?

I choose option two. I'm quite uncomfortable with packaging software
that is known to be vulnerable. To me it seems almost malicious if it
can be avoided.

Other opinions?

>
> J'
>
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 12:21:40PM -0400, Kei Kebreau wrote:
>> John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au> writes:
>> 
>> > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 04:42:59PM -0400, Kei Kebreau wrote:
>> >      
>> >      Judging from the description of the software, it seems like this could
>> >      fit in gnu/packages/image.scm.
>> >      Also, the linter says that this package vulnerable to
>> >      CVE-2015-8979. Supposedly this* upstream patch fixes it. Could you see
>> >      if that fix works for this package?
>> >      
>> >      * https://github.com/commontk/DCMTK/commit/1b6bb76
>> >      
>> >
>> > Unfortunately this patch doesn't go in.  It seems that as well as fixing this
>> > vulnerability it also makes some unrelated changes.  Furthermore, it depends
>> > on a whole lot of other patches which are not in this release.
>> >
>> > Do we have a procedure on what to do in cases like this?
>> >
>> > J'
>> 
>> I don't know if we have an official procedure, though we could try using
>> a later git snapshot with the security patch already integrated.
>> Hopefully that provides functionality compatible to that of the stable
>> release, though it's at least a five year difference between release times.
>> 
>> http://git.cmtk.org/?p=dcmtk.git,a=tags

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]