Bug 54960 – change title 'workaround' to be 'workaround for affected version(s)'

• Product: Gentoo Security
• Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

[Description Aaron Peterson 2004-06-23 20:48:02 UTC]

I get the creeps when i see:

workaround:
none

fix:
upgrade


I kinda view upgrading as a "work around" even though it is more "correct"
the other possible option, that would leave me less hebee jeebee (?)
is to put the "fix" before the "workaround"

I was thinking that this suggestion mgiht violate the guideline for coding, where the short/trivial/default action goes on top, and the long winded / tedious stuff goes at the bottom...  but, the upgrade notice is just about as long as the workaround note, and sometimes the workaround note can be very long.

I'm marking this as trivial, because I know how to use the site, but.. I still get the goosebumps when I see workaround none :(


Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

[Comment 1 Dan Margolis (RETIRED) 2004-06-24 00:03:23 UTC]

According to the Jargon file, a workaround is ``a temporary kluge used to bypass, mask, or otherwise avoid a bug or misfeature...theoretically, workarounds are always replaced by fixes; in practice, customers often find themselves living with workarounds for long periods of time.'' A workaround therefore is quite distinct from the fix generally implemented in the upgrade, so I would say the terminology is actually quite correct. 

As for display order, I don't personally have a preference, but given that the forms and scripts already parse it this way...well, we *could* change it, but is there really a good need too (no offense meant, of course, but it seems this complaint is more aesthetic than anything else). I am surmising that the reason this layout was originally chosen is because of the sort of chronological order of a workaround preceding a fix. But if the people behind the GLSA tools want to rewrite them, they can. ;)

Incidentally, I checked for reference Mandrake, EnGarde, and Debian advisories. None seem to include a workaround, which I personally consider to be a very valuable bit of information (often a trivial workaround can be implemented without the necessity for a loss of service or serious maintainance). So I can't find a good standard to go by. 

I'm inclined to close this bug. Should I not? 

[Comment 2 Kurt Lieber (RETIRED) 2004-06-24 05:09:00 UTC]

As Dan pointed out, "workaround" and "fix" are two entirely separate concepts.  

The format of the GLSA is working pretty well right now.  I don't see an overwhelming need to change anything.  If you feel strongly about this issue, please post a message to the gentoo-security mailing list and see what the rest of the community thinks.  We generally only change things based on feedback from a number of community members.

Personally, I think things are fine as they are.