X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1CC303857709 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com; s=default; t=1697188577; bh=f9J4qWprx6mML1DcjXa2X2tgSNUrgzSMHUuv+QT0Bew=; h=Date:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=f29hsxnBsBLvmmNqeubi+2llwHFEyPhqa4RrnR3HjH13cNuCBo1cBLTUax7dDkouK qkJtzRkpM0dXZWyZncs8WXg/exSHzivZHNWZjkZOHBM/bo8I093XyvtejMxMTecYwC CnIq4S1kEW+Cg9HD4W2X5z+e1vtHcfoywOOcSWGc= X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org EE9E43858D1E Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2023 10:15:21 +0100 To: Eric Hendrickson Subject: Re: Ruby EOL in Cygwin 3.4.9? Message-ID: <20231013091521.lgar5ry6rbxqhtxe@lucy.dinwoodie.org> References: <8cae1a30-cc92-cbea-4599-d7d550850ac5 AT cs DOT umass DOT edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Adam Dinwoodie via Cygwin Reply-To: Adam Dinwoodie Cc: "Hendrickson, Eric D" , cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Errors-To: cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com Sender: "Cygwin" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by delorie.com id 39D9GItW031903 On Thu, 12 Oct 2023, 22:46 Eric Hendrickson wrote: > The comparison to Debian Stable - I hear you but I don’t think that is a > fair comparison. Debian Stable is not shipping EOL packages at the time it > was released. To pick a fairly high-profile example, Debian Bullseye was released as Debian Stable on 14 August 2021. It included Python 2.7, which by that time had been EOL for more than 18 months, with the EOL date having been announced over seven years earlier. https://www.debian.org/releases/bullseye/ https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/python2 https://peps.python.org/pep-0373/ More generally, lots of OSS projects don't provide support for anything other than their most recent release, and Debian Stable includes lots of that software at releases other than the most recent release. If Debian had the policy you're asserting it has, the concept of Debian Stable would be impossible. > And your point about the effort involved and no known bugs is well taken > of course but Cygwin is still distributing EOL software. This is why I > asked, would it make sense to just not release new non emergency versions > of Cygwin with EOL packages, until that can be remedied. Here, the comparison with Debian Stable *is* unhelpful. The concept of "versions of Cygwin" that you're using doesn't make sense: unlike Debian, Cygwin doesn't have an overarching version scheme. There's no such thing as "a version of Cygwin" that we could stop releasing because of problems with a particular package. We could implement a block on releasing any packages while one package has a problem. That seems like a terrible idea to me; I'd be happy to discuss it -- I might be wrong! -- but I'm much more interested in having that discussion with people who have been actively contributing to Cygwin for some time, as they're the folk who are most likely to understand what the advantages and disadvantages might be, and who I trust to be willing to provide practical contributions towards the additional work they're proposing. At the very least, I'd want that discussion to be based on something more significant than a nebulous concept of the project's reputation. > Security scans are only increasing in scrutiny and frequency - this came > to my attention because in my environment we are running Cygwin 3.1.6 - > which admittedly is 3+ years old - and the version of Ruby packaged in it > got identified in a security scan as EOL. > > My first thought was to update the internal Cygwin package to the latest > but i checked and that too is provisioned with an EOL version of Ruby. > (2.6.4) What do you mean by "provisioned"? What do you mean by "the Cygwin package"? If you download the Cygwin installer from the Cygwin website, and ask it to install Ruby, it will install 3.2.2. You *can* install 2.6.4, but you'd have to deliberately select that version. If you are seeing the Cygwin installer trying to install Ruby 2.6.4 by default, that sounds like an installer bug. If that's what's happening, please give us a useful bug report so we can work out what's going wrong. However, if your concern is merely that it's *possible* to install EOL software, I don't think that concern will be widely shared. If someone wants to install old software, or configure an SSH server with a root password of "password1", or otherwise go out of their way to do something that's not ideal from a security perspective, I don't think we have a responsibility to stop them. You might have better luck petitioning the Ruby project to remove the download links for out-of-support software from their releases page, which offers versions of Ruby that have been out of support for over a decade. https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/downloads/releases/ Thankfully, as you say, security scans are only increasing in frequency and scrutiny, and they are evidently capable of catching scenarios where someone has deliberately installed out-of-date software. > Anyway, just wanted to bring this to your attention and ask if there is > anything that can or should be done about this, again toward the reputation > of Cygwin. I say this because I think your concern is genuine: you are coming across as concern trolling. Some of your logic is demonstrably false, as with your claims about Debian project policies. Some of your problems are unclear, as with your explanation of "the Cygwin package" being "provisioned with an EOL version of Ruby". I understand that you've not found many of the replies to you to be kind, but that's largely because you haven't shown us the kindness of clearly explaining your issue or showing you've done any research into the issue yourself. If you are concerned about the reputation of Cygwin, I'd suggest you follow Glenn's excellent advice from earlier in this thread: provide specific offers to help improve Cygwin, rather than merely expressing concerns and asserting we should eject people who have spent years actively contributing to improve Cygwin's reputation. There have been several suggestions of ways you can support the project throughout this email chain. -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple