From dan at langille.org Fri Dec 17 09:37:36 2004 From: dan at langille.org (Dan Langille) Date: Fri Dec 17 09:39:30 2004 Subject: Do you respect the date_modified field? Message-ID: <41C2D30F.16142.730D56B@localhost> At present, FreshPorts deletes all VuXML information each time a commit to ~/ports/security/vuxml/vuln.xml occurs. To reduce database churn, I'm now looking at optimizing this process. I expect the answer to my question to be yes, but do not want to rely upon only my expectation. Do you respect the date_modified field? I ask for reasons of keeping things simple. FreshPorts inserts each vuln into a table. Is it sufficient for FreshPorts to compare the last_modified field as supplied in vuln.xml to determine whether or not it should update its information? Thanks -- Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/ BSDCan - The Technical BSD Conference - http://www.bsdcan.org/ From simon at FreeBSD.org Fri Dec 17 10:50:02 2004 From: simon at FreeBSD.org (Simon L. Nielsen) Date: Fri Dec 17 11:00:19 2004 Subject: Do you respect the date_modified field? In-Reply-To: <41C2D30F.16142.730D56B@localhost> References: <41C2D30F.16142.730D56B@localhost> Message-ID: <20041217185000.GB762@zaphod.nitro.dk> On 2004.12.17 12:37:35 -0500, Dan Langille wrote: > At present, FreshPorts deletes all VuXML information each time a > commit to ~/ports/security/vuxml/vuln.xml occurs. To reduce database > churn, I'm now looking at optimizing this process. > > I expect the answer to my question to be yes, but do not want to rely > upon only my expectation. Do you respect the date_modified field? In general yes, though of course there can be slips sometimes. Of course, if FreshPorts starts to use the modified date I think it's even more likely that modified date will be updated correctly since people will notice if it wasn't bumped. I almost always check my entries on FreshPorts after commit as an extra check that I havn't made any mistakes in the committed entry... > I ask for reasons of keeping things simple. FreshPorts inserts each > vuln into a table. Is it sufficient for FreshPorts to compare the > last_modified field as supplied in vuln.xml to determine whether or > not it should update its information? Not quite that simple unfortunatly. Modified date is not updated when an entry is modified the same day as when it was originally added, or if the modified date already has been bumped once on the date of the commit. So you need to update for all entries which has either modification or entry date today... actually you probably need to take entries from the date before and after also due to timezone's. But that should still reduce the number of entries that must bed update considerably. Actually it should be rather simple to generate the real modification date for each entry using "cvs annotate vuln.xml"... I might play around with that later today :-). -- Simon L. Nielsen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-vuxml/attachments/20041217/5448af8b/attachment.bin From dan at langille.org Fri Dec 17 11:01:35 2004 From: dan at langille.org (Dan Langille) Date: Fri Dec 17 11:17:30 2004 Subject: Do you respect the date_modified field? In-Reply-To: <20041217185000.GB762@zaphod.nitro.dk> References: <41C2D30F.16142.730D56B@localhost> Message-ID: <41C2E6BE.14126.77DB8E3@localhost> On 17 Dec 2004 at 19:50, Simon L. Nielsen wrote: > On 2004.12.17 12:37:35 -0500, Dan Langille wrote: > > At present, FreshPorts deletes all VuXML information each time a > > commit to ~/ports/security/vuxml/vuln.xml occurs. To reduce database > > churn, I'm now looking at optimizing this process. > > > > I expect the answer to my question to be yes, but do not want to rely > > upon only my expectation. Do you respect the date_modified field? > > In general yes, though of course there can be slips sometimes. Of > course, if FreshPorts starts to use the modified date I think it's > even more likely that modified date will be updated correctly since > people will notice if it wasn't bumped. That was my hope too. Sanity Checking(tm). > I almost always check my entries on FreshPorts after commit as an > extra check that I havn't made any mistakes in the committed entry... Is there something I could provide on FreshPorts webpage would make that check easier? I'm thinking of something similar to (for example) http://www.vuxml.org/freebsd/d47e9d19-5016-11d9-9b5f- 0050569f0001.html > > I ask for reasons of keeping things simple. FreshPorts inserts each > > vuln into a table. Is it sufficient for FreshPorts to compare the > > last_modified field as supplied in vuln.xml to determine whether or > > not it should update its information? > > Not quite that simple unfortunatly. Modified date is not updated when > an entry is modified the same day as when it was originally added, or > if the modified date already has been bumped once on the date of the > commit. So you need to update for all entries which has either > modification or entry date today... actually you probably need to take > entries from the date before and after also due to timezone's. But > that should still reduce the number of entries that must bed update > considerably. That's not much more work. -- Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/ BSDCan - The Technical BSD Conference - http://www.bsdcan.org/ From dan at langille.org Fri Dec 17 11:04:16 2004 From: dan at langille.org (Dan Langille) Date: Fri Dec 17 11:18:52 2004 Subject: PHP package names Message-ID: <41C2E75F.8071.7803107@localhost> Looking at http://www.vuxml.org/freebsd/d47e9d19-5016-11d9-9b5f- 0050569f0001.html I see that FreshPorts fails to find some of the packages named in this vuln: php4-dt php4-horde php4-nms mod_php Is this expected? -- Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/ BSDCan - The Technical BSD Conference - http://www.bsdcan.org/ From dan at langille.org Sat Dec 18 07:38:09 2004 From: dan at langille.org (Dan Langille) Date: Sat Dec 18 07:38:11 2004 Subject: Do you respect the date_modified field? In-Reply-To: <41C2E6BE.14126.77DB8E3@localhost> References: <20041217185000.GB762@zaphod.nitro.dk> Message-ID: <41C4088D.32491.BE9CA46@localhost> On 17 Dec 2004 at 14:01, Dan Langille wrote: > On 17 Dec 2004 at 19:50, Simon L. Nielsen wrote: > > > I almost always check my entries on FreshPorts after commit as an > > extra check that I havn't made any mistakes in the committed entry... > > Is there something I could provide on FreshPorts webpage would make > that check easier? I'm thinking of something similar to (for > example) http://www.vuxml.org/freebsd/d47e9d19-5016-11d9-9b5f- > 0050569f0001.html Perhaps this very ugly page will help: http://beta.freshports.org/vuxml.php?vuln=d47e9d19-5016-11d9-9b5f- 0050569f0001 Put any vid you like in there. Notice that there are links to packages that FreshPorts finds (e.g. php4), but not to those it does not recognize (e.g. php4-dtc). Yes, it's ugly. Damn ugly. -- Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/ BSDCan - The Technical BSD Conference - http://www.bsdcan.org/ From simon at FreeBSD.org Sat Dec 18 10:23:53 2004 From: simon at FreeBSD.org (Simon L. Nielsen) Date: Sat Dec 18 10:23:54 2004 Subject: PHP package names In-Reply-To: <41C2E75F.8071.7803107@localhost> References: <41C2E75F.8071.7803107@localhost> Message-ID: <20041218182350.GB784@zaphod.nitro.dk> On 2004.12.17 14:04:15 -0500, Dan Langille wrote: > Looking at http://www.vuxml.org/freebsd/d47e9d19-5016-11d9-9b5f- > 0050569f0001.html I see that FreshPorts fails to find some of the > packages named in this vuln: > > php4-dt > php4-horde > php4-nms > mod_php > > Is this expected? Yes, since they are just deleted ports, which people in theory could still have installed. -- Simon L. Nielsen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-vuxml/attachments/20041218/d0be212c/attachment.bin