Debian Refuses To Push Timezone Update For NZ DST

Jasper Bryant-Greene writes "Although a tzdata release that includes New Zealand's recent DST changes (2007f) has been out for some time, Debian are refusing to push the update from testing into the current stable distribution, codenamed Etch, on the basis that 'it's not a security bug.' This means that unless New Zealand sysadmins install the package manually, pull the package from testing, or alter the timezone to 'GMT-13' manually, all systems running Debian Etch in New Zealand currently have the incorrect time, as DST went into effect this morning. As one of the last comments in the bug report says, 'even Microsoft are not this silly.' The final comment (at this writing), from madcoder, says 'The package sits in volatile for months. Please take your troll elsewhere.'"

Comments

Re:So there are no time based security attacks?

[Lennie]

It's in volatile (where it should be), it's just one line in /etc/apt/sources.list, which should probably already be there and an apt-get update && apt-get -u install tzdata

done.

Debian actually did release it for Stable. It's in

[Anonymous Coward]

It's in volatile repository.

Volatile is specificly designed to take into account things like this. It's for updates to packages, like anti-virus software, and similar things that change over time.

Nobody actually reads the fucking articles do they? The guy that posted the article is a troll and selectively took quotes out of context.

What SlashDot says:
"Although a tzdata release that includes New Zealand's recent DST changes (2007f) has been out for some time, Debian are refusing to push the update from testing into the current stable distribution, codenamed Etch, on the basis that 'it's not a security bug.' This means that unless New Zealand sysadmins install the package manually, pull the package from testing, or alter the timezone to 'GMT-13' manually, all systems running Debian Etch in New Zealand currently have the incorrect time, as DST went into effect this morning. As one of the last comments in the bug report says, 'even Microsoft are not this silly.' The final comment (at this writing), from madcoder, says 'The package sits in volatile for months. Please take your troll elsewhere.'"

What is actually in the Bug Report:
----SNIP----
The fix is already in the volatile archive (see
http://volatile.debian.org/ in the etch-proposed-update archive and it
will also appear in the next release of etch. Alternatively you can also
download the new version by hand and use dpkg -i.
----SNIP----

ALSO:
----SNIP----
>>> I would recommend re-opening this bug and upgrading its severity until the fix has been
>>> applied.
>> That won't change anything as it is now out of control of the glibc team.
>>
>
> And these mission-critical updates aren't put into security, why?
>

Because it's not a security bug.
----SNIP----

NO SHIT. It's _not_ a security bug. Why should the Debian Security team be forced to deal with something that is not security? Think about it for a whole two seconds.

The tzdata was updated a long time ago and is in a Debian repository that is specificly setup to deal with changes like this.
The person who filed the bug report doesn't like this and thinks that the package should be in the security fix repository.

It's fucking stupid. It's not a security bug. The package has been fixed for a long time. It doesn't have to be installed manually. It CAN be installed manually.

Get a grip people.

Re:So there are no time based security attacks?

[thegnu]

I understand the reasoning behind putting it in volatile, but why not enable volatile by default during installation?

Debian is considered the stable distribution. They move glacially slow, and are, if you use their stable repo, stable as hell. If you want bleeding edge by default, install their bleeding edge version.

Otherwise, if you want Debian, install Debian.

Oh, and in response to the even-Microsoft-would-not-be-so-foolish comment: Of course not. They demonstrated their level-headed thinking when they charged $4000 for a time zone update for Windows 2000. A server OS. When you can do it for free if you know how. Debian should charge NZers $4000 Canadian (OUCH!), then they would be respected.

Volatile versus update

[DrYak]

It's in volatile (where it should be)

The whole FA is a big mis-understanding of what the various repositories are and what they purpose are.

• stable - litteraly means stable, as in mountain rocks. Once a distribution hits this status, it normally shouldn't change a bit.
• non-US - the USA have some pretty wierd laws concerning patents and cryptography. There are a lot of software that can be made available in the USA (because it infringes patent that can only exist in the USA system, or because it is a cryptographic software whose strengh is declared too high and considered as a weapon), but the same software can safely be used everywhere else in the world. non-US contains software that is as imuable as stable, but that is specifically banned in the USA.
• updates or security - as it names implies, standart updates release for stable version of debian, only provide fixes to bugs that could be abused for exploits. All fixes retain the same exact version, only patching the hole (i.e.: firefox 2.0.0.1 isn't upgraded to firefox 2.0.0.6. Instead it's iceweasel 2.0.0.1-1 that is patched to 2.0.0.1-2 the exact same source code, except for the security fix). In the very unlikely case that after 3 fucking years of development in testing state, there is still a bug that prevents a program to start, the corrected version (same version just patched) will appear here.
• volatile - this are packages that can change version, because their functionnality needs it. Virus scanning engine clamav is there for exemple (because to catch new threats, some times the engine it self needs to be updated, not only the signatures). Timezone goes there too (a computer won't be hacked with a bad timetable. therefore it's not in security)
• volatile-sloppy - for non critical upgrades. Gaim/Pidgin goes there for exemple. It's not critical to the function of the computer, but never the less, IM network companies like microsoft regularily changes their protocoles just to break compatibility with 3rd party clients. Thus clients needs to be upgraded to newer versions from time to time. But because newer version MAY break some compatibility with older distribution, older config files, or old user scripts, it is separated from volatile.
• backports - newer version of software, for those who constantly whine because Debian release are 3 years appart. Usually it's package from testing recompiled in stable environment
• testing - This is much closer to what other distribution call a release. It has more up to date packages, but isn't completly bleeding edge, is somewhat stable. This will become the next stable once everyone in debian is happy and decide to definitely freeze it
• vendors, like samba or 3rd parties maintain their own repositories with software compiled against stable, if you like updating your software to latest version.

More information about voltile, at the corresponding debian site.

Debian is quite popular among some admins because of this. You know, once you install debian on a server, that your installation will still get critical security fixes for the next 3-4 years. But nothing else will change a bit. 0% chance that an upgrade may break your configuration file. 0% risks that all the scripts that you manually wrote will suddenly stop functionning because of subtle differences between version 1.8.6.9 and 1.8.6.10 in some obscure software. (which are things that could occasionally happen with other distribution ) NO dependency hell once you start using updated software (like a 3rd party repository targeting a library version 2.0.9, but the distro having updated to 2.0.11. Very rarely it can happen between openSUSE and packman).

But as AC said in this thread, maybe the installation procedure of Debian should give