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

So there are no time based security attacks?

[DrXym]

Assuming there are, or even the possibility that one could be crafted, it seems quite justifiable to call this a security fix. And aside from that, it's just dumb not to include it.

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.

Re:So there are no time based security attacks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of banks that calculate interest rates based on the account balance on midnight. If you have two banks and one of those is run under an unpatched Debian system, you can get twice the interest rate by transferring money back and forth between the banks at the right times.

Re:So there are no time based security attacks?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Interest is paid for durations, not points in time. The exact point in time at which interest is calculated is negligible, as long as the duration is calculated correctly, and that is a time-zone independent calculation: (b+t)-(a+t)=b-a.

Re:So there are no time based security attacks?

[ozric99]

No, see we take fractions of a penny from each transaction and put them all into one account...

Re:So there are no time based security attacks?

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand the reasoning behind putting it in volatile, but why not enable volatile by default during installation? The individuals who need to disable it will know how. And, most importantly, the individuals who don't have a clue how to enable it (most likely desktop users) will not have to worry about it. Remember, Debian aims to make their OS usable for everyone (a lofty goal but it is the project's goal nonetheless). However, it is not necessarily a requirement of that goal to force users to become masters of Debian's inner workings. Enabling volatile by default would lower the bar, albeit slightly, for part of the user base that Debian is chasing.

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.

Re:So there are no time based security attacks?

[hairyfeet]

The daylight savings patch you posted is more work than is required.Here is a link to one that works on NT-2003 and requires but a single click.Oh,and they have one for 9X that does the same.http://www.intelliadmin.com/Downloads.htm. Look under freeware downloads

That said,being a fan of Debian based OSs,I'm wondering why they are doing this. Does this patch cause crashes? System instability? If not it seems a disservice to their NZ users not to have it in their standard repository.

Re:So there are no time based security attacks?

[ozbird]

Debian is considered the stable distribution.

The way it was explained to me, Debian is the stale distribution.

Re:So there are no time based security attacks?

[HiThere]

This is the debian *STABLE* branch. In testing I imagine they would do it quickly...well, within a week.

The point is, stable is supposed to be stable, and only changed for very good cause (which this is), and then only after considerable testing...which this hasn't had. An exception is made for security fixes because it's considered *necessary* to patch vulnerabilities. Otherwise, no. Even if you don't see how it could cause a problem, you don't include changes without considerable review and testing. That's what stable means.

OTOH, if you choose to import it from another repository...it's your choice. And simple to do. (I'll grant that I don't understand the "volitile" response. The repositories I'm aware of are stable, testing, unstable, and experimental. Presumably volitile has something to do with the stable branch.)

Given all that...I don't see how the timezone file could cause a problem, and I don't see why it should have set in the volitile repository for weeks. Perhaps nobody would test it before they needed it?

Re:So there are no time based security attacks?

[Brad Eleven]

Re-read the parent: Logfile timestamps, for the most part, are written as character data translated by the operating system at the time of the event. One exception are wtmp files, which are written in binary format and read by other programs, e.g., last(1). However, syslogd does the translation on the fly, and therefore writes its messages per the current timezone setting, viz:

Feb 27 01:01:04 umbc9 syslogd: restart
Feb 27 01:01:14 umbc9 telnetd[1803]: connect from annex3.umbc.edu
Feb 27 01:02:15 umbc9 rlogind[1845]: connect from annex1.umbc.edu
Feb 27 01:02:44 umbc9 lpd[1879]: /usr/adm/acsps-errs: No such file or
    directory
Feb 27 01:07:08 umbc9 telnetd[1914]: connect from annex1.umbc.edu
Feb 27 01:08:06 umbc9 rlogind[1946]: connect from annex1.umbc.edu
Feb 27 01:10:28 umbc9 rshd[1985]: connect from xxxx@deputy.cs.umbc.edu
Feb 27 01:10:30 umbc9 rlogind[1993]: connect from xxxx@deputy.cs.umbc.edu
Feb 27 01:13:01 umbc9 sendmail[2042]: BAA02041: to=xzy@picard.cs.wisc.edu,
  delay=00:00:02, mailer=nullclient, relay=mailhub1.gl.umbc.edu. (130.85.3.11),
  stat=Sent (BAA04370 Message accepted for delivery)

Note that this example does not include the timezone; most UNIX implementations do, so at least the logs can be transposed to reflect one's own timezone.

The impact is skewing of post-event analysis of messages in logs. While I agree with the value of your presumption, i.e., logs could be written with timestamps expressed as offsets from the epoch, it's not the way things are done at present. OTOH, if the analysis is crucial, it's trivial to write a [Perl|Tcl] script to filter the logs for less error-prone analysis.

I happen to have written a small app recently to log events with the timestamps written as epoch offsets, because the people who use the logs are in different timezones and want to understand the events' occurrences in their own timezone.

Re:So there are no time based security attacks?

[myowntrueself]

This is the debian *STABLE* branch. In testing I imagine they would do it quickly...well, within a week.

Sure, and if you want to put up with the possibility that, eg, trying to use tab-completion will cause your shell to dump core then, by all means, use testing.

'Stable' cannot, in the real-world really mean 'nothing changes except security updates'. The world does not work like that, as this demonstrates.

Re:So there are no time based security attacks?

[Blkdeath]

I agree with you but I'm having difficulty imagining a specific attack scenario...

No, the solution is to drop the "security" red herring altogether and concentrate on the truth of the matter. This update is small, simple, and critical in an international economy. It should go without saying that it should be a mandatory, top of the list update for all systems regardless of their status in some bureaucratic development cycle.

Forget the analogies of web browsers, MP3 players, web servers, e-mail clients, IM clients or any of the other thousands of software packages that could in whatever small or large way affect the system and concentrate on this; this update is in force by a major political body recognized around the world. It is fact and computers should at all costs follow the guidelines set by the Real World governing entities. Period. Full Stop.

For any developer to be pedantic enough to marginalize this as "non security" and therefore refuse to put it into the mandatory update pool is harmful and highly irresponsible. Said developer(s) should be reprimanded, not lauded.

For all those reading these threads and responding that a simple command-line update is the proper solution are short sighted and elitist. Not to sound too cliche, but this is just another example of why Linux / FOSS users and advocates are looked down upon by the real forces in the computer industry and why Linux will never be a mainstream standard. Get off your high horses and realize that just because something is usable by the masses doesn't make it technically inferior nor does it make you any less of a geek because you didn't have to hand-roll your latest update.

Re:So there are no time based security attacks?

[xenocide2]

Have you actually used Debian testing? Or Debian at all? I admit it's a complex beast, and gotten more complex since I left, as this whole article revolves around a misunderstanding between sysadmins and developers. New packages start off in unstable (or experimental if the uploader thinks it's too buggy to consider for regular use), and if, after ten days without a major bug report, the package is placed in testing. Unstable is a rocky ride, but so many people use it that most developers are highly concerned about regressions like tab completion core dumping. So much so that during one cycle the DPL announced an unstable freeze until the new stable was released.

This misunderstanding about timezones is based on where changes go. Security updates to packages in stable go to the "security" repo. Things like clamav definitions change on a regular basis and reside in volatile. This particular repo is news to me, but I don't admin Debian boxes. The developers believe the update should belong in volatile and not security. That is all. Stable remains stable.

Re:So there are no time based security attacks?

[petermgreen]

the sensationalist /. summary asside lets get some facts.

it is not a security update so it doesn't go in the security repositry
it is already in the volatile repositry
it is already in etch-pryoposed-updates which means it will probablly be in the next point release of etch

pushing a point release of stable is not something that has been taken lighly, lots of CDs to build and push out to mirrors, lots and lots of testing.

Sure the US changes got better treatment, how much of that was luck and how much of it was being one of the largest (in terms of computer using population) countries arround is hard to tell.

If you can't live with the way debian stable releases work choose another distro. If you can't manage your IT infrastructure such that deploying local patches is not unreasonably difficult fire your IT staff.

Re:So there are no time based security attacks?

[brad-x]

If you can't live with the way debian stable releases work choose another distro.

Many organizations have and will continue to do so. Thanks for the advice.

If you can't manage your IT infrastructure such that deploying local patches is not unreasonably difficult fire your IT staff.

When backports and patches amass to the point where a smooth upgrade path to the next major release is no longer possible, it's time to start laughing at the militant ignorance of the distribution's maintainers and adherents.

Re:So there are no time based security attacks?

[bitserf]

It's a freakin' time zone file change. Time zone files are a known quantity. People know how they behave when changed. They're not executable code.

I'm sure they can manufacture some plausible sounding technical reason for not pushing the update, but they're just looking like asses.

In defense of the Debian team...

[Anonymous Coward]

... maybe it just isn't time.

Is it a security update?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some systems may rely on the "wrong" timezone for their continued operation, so if it is indeed not a security update, and the policy for automatic updates is "security only", then not pushing the update is correct. If you need the timezone update, get it. It's not like they hide it from you.

Re:Is it a security update?

[jabuzz]

So pray explain why they pushed a timezone update for the US changes earlier in the year? As another poster said the reputation of Debian is being ruined by the ineptitude and down right stupidity of the management.

Re:Is it a security update?

[dondelelcaro]

So pray explain why they pushed a timezone update for the US changes earlier in the year?

It's not that the updates aren't going to be made, it's just that they're made via point releases, not security updates because they aren't a security bug.

If you don't want to wait for a point release, the packages have been made available already via volatile and the backports area. It's trivial to add these to your sources.list and install the updated package.

the reputation of Debian is being ruined by the ineptitude and down right stupidity of the management.

You seem to not understand how Debian actually works. The management of Debian, such as it is, are the actual developers; the people who actually sit down and do the work. If you don't like the decisions that they make, you have two choices: jump in and help out or choose to use something different. The former will enable you to make decisions in the areas you work in, the latter means hoping that someone else is going to make decisions that you agree with. Choose whichever you prefer; presuming to dictate to those who actually are doing the work isn't one of those choices.

Apple are just as bad

[kiwioddBall]

They haven't rolled out a patch for OSX either. There are several folks on Apple in NZ who are just as disappointed.
Meanwhile, Microsoft rolled out a patch on Windows Update - Microsoft users on Automatic Updates rolled over without even knowing anything had changed.

probably not much of an issue

[FudRucker]

i would imagine anyone in New Zealand smart enough to install Debian is also smart enough to fix this manually...

Re:probably not much of an issue

[Dr. Evil]

Anyone who does business with New Zealand might not be aware of the change and the need to update their systems.

E.g. sites hosting NZ content outside of NZ, or even banks doing business with customers in NZ.

The change impacts the world and should be applied to all systems.

Re:probably not much of an issue

[KiloByte]

dropped debian for my home machines and work systems a long time ago. Ubuntu rocks me. It's everything good about debian (apt-get) without everything bad (debian policy, debian usability). Stability-wise:
debian/stable > debian/testing > debian>unstable > ubuntu/released > debian/experimental > ubuntu/unreleased

Thus, for a home desktop which can break most of the time and where you want the bling, you can afford to run Ubuntu.

I do run Beryl at home, even though it breaks a lot. Beryl, not the new versions of Compiz which after all those months after merge are still a regression, both stability and usability wise. Yet, I wouldn't let it anywhere near a system which shouldn't break. Well, many people actually run Windows in places where stability matters, but I digress. And Ubuntu made Compiz the default...

Re:probably not much of an issue

[Bloater]

> In this case: bling = my computer knowing what time it is.

If you're running debian then it was apparently updated automatically ages ago. The article seems to be about a bug reported by somebody who chose to turn off updates except for security fixes. Naturally, then, they didn't get this update - they then asked for these things to be considered security bugs in future.

I disagree with the bug reporter. Anywhere time is used in a security mechanism (and there are many) it should be using UTC or be robust against timesaving measures (eg, only be used for approximate deadlines to improve odds). In which case a timesaving change is not needed for security. Security bugs are therefore in the application not the time metadata (except adjustments to UTC which definitely *would* be security issues).

In short - debian users' arses (and clocks) are covered just fine.

Debian did the right thing

[Anonymous Coward]

In my opinion, Debian did the right thing here.

This update is not security-related, so has no business being in the security update section. That's perfectly OK - Debian's security updates are completely safe to apply 99% of the time, because they do not change functionality. They only fix security bugs. Unlike Microsoft, Debian are not in the practice of shipping automatic updates that change functionality.

The update has been posted to the volatile repository, which is intended for things that change frequently, like timezone data. It can be installed from there right now - any of these people complaining could have simply installed the patch at any time over the past several months. The update has also been pushed to the updates repository, for inclusion in the next point release of Etch.

I don't see the problem here.

Re:Debian did the right thing

[Andy Dodd]

"This update is not security-related"

Yes, in fact, it is. Have you ever heard of log timestamps?

Re:Debian did the right thing

[julesh]

"This update is not security-related"

Yes, in fact, it is. Have you ever heard of log timestamps?

If you are using log timestamps for security-sensitive applications, you really should be using UTC (or at least a timezone that doesn't have daylight saving changes), because otherwise you will get ambiguities cropping up: there is a one hour window every year for which the timestamps will repeat an hour later making it impossible in some circumstances to tell when exactly stamps left during these two hours occurred. This has substantially worse security consequences than merely not adjusting your clock for DST, which can always be corrected for later.

Re:Debian did the right thing

[cortana]

There is no difference between what happened then and what is happening now. In both cases, the update is being rolled into the next point release of the stable distribution. Note that this has nothing to do with security updates.

It is a shame that the updated tzdata package did not enter the Debian ("etch") 4.0r1 point release... I would welcome an explanation for why this was the case, but then again this is Slashdot, not LWN. :)

Either you don't get it or you're a troll.

[babbling]

Debian have promised their users that only security updates will be rolled out and that they will not release any updates that change the normal behavior of programs. They do this because Debian gets run on lots of mission-critical servers where they don't want a program changing its behavior via an "update".

Rolling clocks forward by two hours is a pretty huge change in behavior for some servers, and there isn't much of a security risk in not rolling out the update automatically, so they're not going to.

They're doing the right thing.

Re:Either you don't get it or you're a troll.

[Gothmog of A]

I am not so sure it is the right thing. Cron jobs are supposed to run at a specified wall-clock time. If the wall-clock time is not correct any more cron jobs will get out-of-sync with business procedures.

It may not be a security risk but most servers' behaviour will probably change more without the patch than with it.

Re:Either you don't get it or you're a troll.

[Russ Nelson]

First, it sounds like this is only a problem because installing 'volatile' is not the default. If it was, then all these machine would now be up to date.

Second, changing the time zone only changes the *presentation* of the time. It doesn't change the time itself. If your software doesn't understand that the presentation of the time is simply a user preference, then your software has a more serious problem.

OB

[Hognoxious]

This means that unless New Zealand sysadmins install the package manually

Imagine the overtime if both of them had to come in on a Saturday morning!

Re:OB

[BladeMelbourne]

Their sheep will be so lonely.

Re:Debian are refusing to push the update

[Knuckles]

Debra + Ian: http://www.debian.org/intro/about#history

Re:Dropped debian back in '01.

[Lennie]

It's Debian policy to update stable in point-releases, to have security updates through security.debian.org and packages that _need_ regular code updates (like the clamav virus scanner) in volatile. This timezone change is in volatile.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Debian keeps getting sillier every day.

[Ewan]

I dont think the correct time is a bleeding edge feature is it?

With my FreeBSD hats...

[MavEtJu]

As the person who did the latest timzeone updates to RELENG_5, RELENG_6 and HEAD (but not to the security-only branches RELENG_5_5 and RELENG_6_2) I say: They're right.
As the person who maintains the misc/zoneinfo port I say: They're right.

This points to a wider problem...

[b0s0z0ku]

abolish DST! It was silly in the early 1900s when the majority of workers worked in factories, mills, or on farms. It's sillier in 2007. Get rid of that stupidity once and for all.

Re:This points to a wider problem...

[b0s0z0ku]

So give tax breaks to employers who change their working hours for the summer. Time is an important point of reference, and altering it is the height of stupidity and self-delusion.

-b.

Re:This points to a wider problem...

[Aladrin]

There have been studies that showed it doesn't really reduce energy usage. The only thing left is having more daylight for your picnics.

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=daylight+savings+time+doesn't+save+energy&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Re:This points to a wider problem...

[b0s0z0ku]

Therefore it is obvious that the sane thing to do is spend less instead of dealing with this stuff as if it was a simple cash flow problem.

The same thing can be accomplished by shifting working/school hours as by fucking with what should be a constant frame of reference. Besides, if you want to save energy, there are better things to mandate -- CFL usage, tax all cars that make less than 30 mpg average at 100%, etc ...

-b.

Re:This points to a wider problem...

[Minwee]

if you want to save energy, there are better things to mandate -- CFL usage

Absolutely. There is nothing more wasteful of energy than the lengthy overtimes, fourth downs and tiny fields used by the NFL. Playing by CFL rules is just good for everybody.

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.

What I find truly dumb....

[TW Atwater]

...is daylight savings time.

WTF

[fmaresca]

this article is about? It's about a sysadmin who's blaming Debian for not doing her job?
As it's clearly pointed out in the bug report, this package:
1) Has not a security bug, so does not belong to security-updates.
2) Was in volatile for a long time.
3) Is scheduled for the next release of etch.

debian-volatile is a repository for this type of packages (as virus lists, tzdata, et alter) that has information/data changes/updates often. If your time zone has changed or it's about to change, it's your responsability as a sysadmin to upgrade the packages, not Debian's. There were not a bug in tzdata.

Debian is one of the best distros out there, please contribute to make it even better by filling bug reports, but please take a minute to think about what you are doing, and read carefully the developers/mantainers posts or replys, because most of the time they're right.

Re:WTF

[fmaresca]

Ubuntu, although Debian based, it's a completely different distro, and it's goal it's aimed at a different target. Ubuntu is capable of push updates/upgrades largely because the quality assurance is made upstream (in Debian itself).

Basically, as a sysadmin you have at least five different options using Debian or Debian-derived distros:

1) Stable (codename Etch): you are at the topline in terms of stability/security, although the packages here are not the latest upstream releases. You have to handmade some things now and then. Fixes and regular updates through security/updates and volatile. Aimed at production servers. Scheduled releases.
2) Testing (codename Lenny): you are in middle land between top stability and latest releases. For some time now, security fixes are available in security/updates. May you have a develop system to test your things with the newer versions of software before they make into stable. Frequent updates.
3) Unstable (codename Sid): latest versions from upstream, new packages. Aimed as a development/maintainers, sid has no security updates, so your in your own here. Most of the time is usable in day to day work as a desktop. Lots of updates every day. You will be busy apt-getting.
4) Mixed system: you have the possibility to start from one of stable/testing/unstable and mix into it packages for other releases, getting specific versions of some packages and letting the rest of the system follow the default release version.
5) Debian derived distro (like Ubuntu): may it have different targets, or narrowed ones, like desktop users, or some language speakers, or software collections and tools for specific disciplines, or any other purpose. If you're in any of these segments, may be you have to consider using one of them. Outside this segments, your best choice probably is one of the above. Also, different distros has different policies regarding updating, software included, versions and integration testings, so you must read their documentation carefully.

So, if as a sysadmin you don't have time or knowledge to deal with this kind of things, and your choice was stable, you're plain wrong. Stable _is_ for sysadmins who knowns what are doing, and _do_ it.
Now, if you're very busy, and have no time to cope with this sysadmin duties, may be you have to had choose Lenny (testing), because (although I'm not recommending it to production environments) it's perhaps the best trade off between stability/security (as mentioned above, has security updates) and newer upstream versions and ease of maintain. Tools like cron-apt exists to make your life easier if you're short of resources/time/IT people or you're lazzy.

Regarding of the timeline in releases of Etch, this is how the world is. If the original report was filled near the end of the pointed release preparation, there was no chances of updating the package for _that_ release, so it will be included in the next one. So, this updated package is ready available in Lenny/Sid, but has to wait for the next Etch release to be available there, and this is why Ubuntu has it updated in a week _after_ Debian maintainers updated the package in Lenny/Sid. This is possible for Ubuntu because it has nothing like stable.

Regarding other posts about how this kind of things (quality, security and stability control) are making difficult the wider adoption of GNU/Linux, please go and grab any other OS out there that fullfills your expectations in every aspect; we'll be here waiting for your comments about it.

Re:Debian keeps getting sillier every day.

[fbjon]

You're right, it's not bleeding-edge but rather a volatile feature. Hence the fix is in volatile, just like TFS says.

It all sounds like a shitstorm in a chamber pot to me.

Re:Debian actually did release it for Stable. It's

[RAMMS EIN]

This is what usually happens when something Debian-policy-related happens and is touted as silly:

1. I think: How silly of them. Just like Debian to do something stubborn and annoying like that.
2. Then I read the argumentation, the policy that led them to the decision.
3. I find myself agreeing with the policy and thus accepting the decision as the Right Thing.
4. I find someone, usually in the Debian project itself, has come up with a solution for those who don't like the decision.

The more time passes, the more I like Debian. They have policies that are good and they stick to them. When the policy causes them to do something that people don't like, they provide a workaround. With Debian, you can have your cake and eat it. Exclusively free software? Check. Proprietary software when you do want it? Check. Stable system that stays the same for years? Check. Recent versions of packages when you want them? Check. Support in the package manager for mixing and matching? Check. Oh, and they had dependencies figured out and working well long before any other distro I'm aware of. Debian isn't perfect, but it comes frighteningly close sometimes.

Re:What did Debian do for the US DST change?

[RodgerDodger]

Ah... found it (and in a link from the FA, as well... go figure). The US DST changes, according to this bug report went into tzdata2006p - which, sure enough, got the changelog got pushed to stable Nov 28.

So that does beg the question - if it's okay to do it for the US, why not NZ?

Re:My god!

[Domstersch]

What rubbish. New Zealand's technology industry is more significant to its citizens than the US technology industry is to Americans. As a small country, New Zealand's economy relies more on technological innovation than big countries do, with their natural resources and primary production. I'm not just talking about the famous examples (the electric fence, Rakon) either, but a constant push for more efficient and more valuable secondary production.

Or by significant did you mean significant to you and you alone? Who made you Captain of Industry?

Your guess about the few dozen people is also wrong. I, personally, just me, know a few dozen Kiwi Debian users, and I wouldn't say that's even close to the number that live in my suburb. Free software adoption is alive and well down under - it goes well with the 'number 8 wire' tinkering mentality that is a well-established part of New Zealand culture (Burt Munro and all that).

None of that is to say Debian should break policy - I agree that volatile is where these updates belong. But the arguments you give in favour of the status quo are bullshit.

Re:Google Groups in Konqueror

[Slashcrap]

This isn't an isolated incident either. You cannot browse Google Groups in Konqueror. In the bug report they legitimately argue that it's Google's fault for not adhering to standards, but they still lost me as a user, and undoubtedly others also. http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140531 [kde.org]

Firstly, this is offtopic and has nothing to do with Debian. Secondly either Google or the KHTML team must have fixed it because I couldn't reproduce the bug in Konqueror.

When you say they've lost you as a user, do you just mean Konqueror? If so, is there anything we can do to lose you as a Linux user as well?

Re:My god!

[swillden]

Or configure NTP.

That won't address the issue at all. NTP makes sure the system clock is synchronized with UTC. The issue here is how much offset from UTC should be used for times that are displayed to users.

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

Re:Volatile versus update

[Wdomburg]

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.

And a 100% chance that a change in your timezone will cause your servers to suddenly have the wrong time (assuming default configuration).

No thanks, I'll stick to a platform with a more sane balance between platform stability and not breaking things.

Re:Volatile versus update

[Ultra64]

Maybe he said 'fucking' because he fucking wanted to.

Re:Volatile versus update

[TheDormouse]

I think the participle fucking quite succinctly and accurately described the combination of amazement and frustration the author of the post intended to convey. It really is a useful word that can express complex emotion concisely: truly in the spirit of Strunk & White's rule 13.

Re:Volatile versus update

[dctoastman]

People who reduce themselves to bitching about curse words contribute nothing to the conversation at hand.

Re:Volatile versus update

[tylernt]

I solved this problem by changing wholesale to GMT/UTC on all of our servers, Linux and Windows. Now we never have to worry about another stupid DST or TZ change again, including MS charging $4K for a patch that should be free. It also makes life easier for people outside our TZ who use our servers.

I just learned that I go to work at 3pm in the morning and head home at 11pm. It's not hard. I wish the world would switch to GMT, it would make everything so much easier. Businesses can have summer hours if they wish to take advantage of the longer days.

Of course, the desktops are all still on local time. There would be a pitchforks-and-torches uprising if you tried to change that. ;)

Re:Volatile versus update

[suv4x4]

In the very unlikely case that after 3 fucking years of development

This was a good post, but it's a pity that your command of English is so limited that this gratuitous vulgarity is the best adjective you could choose. Well, I fixed it for you:

In the very unlikely case that after 3 sex abstinence years of development

That's what you meant, right.. At least I think you did :P ?

Re:Volatile versus update

[chris_eineke]

Hehe. Yeah, those fuckers. :)

This _is_ debian

[squidinkcalligraphy]

This is debian, and there is a simple command-line based solution. Debian isn't aimed at grannies or the average corporate joe. Its primary user base is geeks and sysadmins who need rock-solid systems. And it does a damn good job of that. It also servers as a great reference implementation for others (ubuntu, et al) to customise and optimise for more specific uses.

Re:The real culprit here

[johnw]

All the commercial OSs release the update, yet someone that controls something that is non-profit decides he is right and everyone else is wrong. The reason the commercial OSs release it? Because people use it! You seem to have failed to read the article. The Debian people *have* released the necessary package ages ago, and it will be rolled into the next release of Etch. The OP's complaint is that they didn't put it in the security updates. Since it isn't a security update it would have been quite wrong to put it in the security updates.

The complaint amounts to "You should have put it in the wrong place because I was looking in the wrong place and didn't find it." People who actually bother to think about what they're doing use Debian precisely *because* you can rely on them sticking to the rules.

Re:Debian actually did release it for Stable. It's

[pherthyl]

That's why I love it too. I really don't like the distributions where you get a big bunch of packages as a release, which you are then basically stuck with until the next release (at which point you have to upgrade and cross your fingers, or reinstall). Like Ubuntu, you get a whole ton of packages, and there are always a few that have a subtle bug. But since you're on one release, you don't get the fix until six months later (of course, you can install it separately, but it's a pain). With Debian, if an app is broken in some way, I get the fix as soon as that developer releases a new version, without affecting any other package.

And it's really not that complicated to use. Even things like nvidia drivers are just a m-a autoinstall nvidia away. Sometimes it takes a while, but eventually I find Debian makes things like that very simple and integrated.

I think you mean GMT *plus* 13.

[novakreo]

This means that unless New Zealand sysadmins install the package manually, pull the package from testing, or alter the timezone to 'GMT-13' manually I hope no one actually follows the summary's suggestion of manually setting GMT-13 as the timezone. Given that NZ is now GMT+13, you'd be 26 hours behind.

Re:I think you mean GMT *plus* 13.

[26199]

Actually it's correct. The POSIX standard specifies the timezones backwards.

See, e.g.: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4813746

Clever, eh?

It sure is a security bug

[Chris Snook]

Several security protocols mandate close time synchronization to minimize the risk of replay attacks, so failure to deploy this time zone change causes a denial of service. In particular Kerberos is impacted, and increasing the permissible time skew by a few orders of magnitude on every box in the domain, which not all implementations support, creates a substantial risk unless you're set up for ticket pre-authentication, which puts a greater load on the server, is not well supported by all clients, and is thus often not enabled. Admittedly, if you're using a network of Debian stable machines, you should be okay, but god forbid someone should use a Debian stable box in an Active Directory deployment.

Similar problems may exist for SSL (https, ldaps, imaps anyone?) but I'm not sure if a one hour difference would exceed the tolerance in many applications.

Disclaimer: I work for a commercial distributor.

Re:It sure is a security bug

[igb]

Protocols mandate close synch of UTC. If they required clock-on-the-wall time to be synchronized then they wouldn't work across time zone boundaries. I manage a network with staff in six timezones, between UTC-8 and UTC+9, some of them with non-integer offsets, with (from memory) four different sets of DST rules, including one (Japan) that doesn't do daylight saving. I know about the timezones because I'm a clock geek sad enough to know the difference between UTC and GMT. But I don't need my systems to understand it (aside from shouting at bloody Apple for thinking BST, UTC+1, is called BDT). That's because everything that cares about timing (Clearcase, WebDAV, SVN, NFS, Make...) works in UTC.

Re:Debian actually did release it for Stable. It's

[ewen]

The person who filed the bug report doesn't like this and thinks that the package should be in the security fix repository.

FTR, actually that's not the case. Someone else who stumbled onto the problem near the last minute doesn't like the fact that it didn't go into the main repository or security repository. I -- the person who filed the original bug -- am perfectly happy with the fix going into the volatile archive, and patched the servers I manage months ago. (I think it's rather unfortunate it missed the 4.0r1 point release, and unfortunate (but understandable) that there's no patch for Debian Sarge ("oldstable"), but otherwise the situation seems to have been handled fine. For Debian Sarge it works okay to take the NZ or Pacific/Auckland timezone file from a patched Etch system and put it onto the Sarge system.)

Ewen

Re:volatile explained

[Blkdeath]

BTW, adding 1 line to your /etc/apt/sources.list seems a fairly simple way to get the patch, so what *is* the problem here? Don't want to understand how your OS deals with certain things, then don't use Debian.

There's a lot I don't understand about the things I use in my day to day life but I still use them. Micro-managing one's operating system is a foolish waste of time and loss of productivity. My operating system exists to grant me access to the tools I've installed to perform tasks relevant to my daily life and career. This is something that should be done right the first time without any political nonsense getting in the way. A timezone patch not stable? Now I've heard it all. Next thing you know my /etc/issue file will be unstable.