Hi Troy,

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, Troy Dawson wrote:

> Hi Andreas,
> They look the same as SL 52 packages because they are the same.  Which always 
> makes me suspicious on a major upgrade like this.  We did need to update the 
> prelink for SL 50, but that is already in the security errata from an earlier 
> security errata.
>
> I personally do not use autoconfig and do not know how much this is going to 
> impact people.  How prevalent is this?

well, we know that at least Jon's site relies on it as well. I guess it's 
quite common at least on larger sites.

> It looks like the bug isn't even being worked on yet, even though it is over 
> a month old.  Part of me wants to wait, but another part of me hates holding 
> up a critical security errata.  And this one I've already messed up and let 
> it slip a couple of days.
>
> What if I sent out the security errata with a warning that says to put the 
> link there if you need to run autoconfig?

It's not just the link, the config files also have to be installed in 
different locations.

And of course there are more serious changes that will cause headaches fro 
sites doing central administration and/or having home directories on 
central filesystems. /usr/lib/firefox-<version>/plugins is no longer 
searched (breaking the jpackage way of providing the java plugin). And the 
consequences of having an sqlite DB in ~/.mozilla - which is fsync'ed 
several times per web page loaded - could be quite serious for sites with 
~ in NFS or (especially) AFS.

This update is quite a nightmare. Our site can not and will not roll it 
out for the time being, certainly not on a friday. Other sites may 
appreciate a big fat warning and/or some more delay. But then, those 
likely to have serious trouble should be controlling and testing their 
updates anyway.

Cheers,
 	Stephan



-- 
Stephan Wiesand
   DESY - DV -
   Platanenallee 6
   15738 Zeuthen, Germany