What is release 2.3_1?
-
the update should be referred to it's full name, 2.3.0_1, to minimize confusion. And yes you will be able to update to 2.3.1.
-
it's full name, 2.3.0_1, to minimize confusion.
Are you sure you minimize confusion with this 'unexpected' naming scheme?
A lot of different options come to mind that may have been easier to understand. But maybe not to implement into your system? -
pfSense team, please change the naming scheme. And, please restart all the necessary services after a patch is applied to minimize misconfigured/unpatched production systems.
-
Nice new update system. Works pretty well. Happy to see no reboot required for this one. Yes would like to see release notes in the updater to give us an idea what to expect and anything we need to do.
No, I wouldn't want automatic restart of services long as the updater tells me which ones I need to restart since in production it may disrupt anybody using it.
-
…would like to see some frequent updates for openSSL in the future ;-)
https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20160503.txt
-
pfSense team, please change the naming scheme. And, please restart all the necessary services after a patch is applied to minimize misconfigured/unpatched production systems.
+1 for this
-
…would like to see some frequent updates for openSSL in the future ;-)
https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20160503.txt
Now that little updates of individual components can happen fairly easily, in some ways security updates for stuff like this could be done routinely, even if the particular security holes that are patched do not directly apply to pfSense use cases. Then people (or dumb security checking scripts) that check the version of these things will find it is up-to-date and be happy.
Of course there are the overheads in doing this of:
a) pfSense core people have to do a reasonable range of testing to avoid regressions.
b) Firewall admins may not appreciate having a (even small) update every couple of weeks, when it is strictly not essential. -
We can put out an update with much less of a test routine as in the past since testing can be limited to things that changed. But yeah one like openssl requires a lot more care than ntpd, since it touches a lot of things. The openssl fix is in 2.3.1 already. We're possibly releasing 2.3.1 soon enough that it'll be the first including it. If that's going to take a bit longer, we'll do a 2.3.0_2.
-
And when it gets to 2.4, to save confusion over the _1 _2 patches naming convention, it would be good to call it 2.4.0 - then every release has 3 numbers in it up front, and the patches add to the end - 2.4.0_1 …
Thus version 3 (one day/year!) would be 3.0.0 -
And when it gets to 2.4, to save confusion over the _1 _2 patches naming convention, it would be good to call it 2.4.0
Definitely, it ends up being too confusing without the implied zero there.
-
2.3a, 2.3b would have been way easier to understand than 2.3_1 while working on 2.3.1
But it's better than releasing an updated 2.x version without suffix which we already had as well… -
the new updating system is awesome!!!
-
A system mail would be nice if a system or package update is available.
Hello.
It can be done simply with php:
Notifier package & platform updates via email.
https://www.javcasta.com/bounties/#notifier_package_plarformRegards.
