Re: [blfs-support] protobuf-33.0
"Bruce Dubbs" ([email protected] via blfs-dev Mailing List) <[email protected]> Sat, 18 Oct 2025 11:11:27 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.lfs.beyond.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 10/18/25 4:31 AM, Rainer Fiebig ([email protected] via blfs-dev Mailing List) wrote: > Am 17.10.25 um 21:44 schrieb Rahul Chandra ([email protected] via > blfs-support Mailing List): >> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 9:00 AM Bruce Dubbs >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I updated to protobuf-33.0 yesterday, but checking md5sums today I found that >>> upstream made a 'stealth' update. That is, they changed the tarball without changing >>> the version number. >>> >>> One file was changed. >>> >>> I've updated the book, but it will not render until early tomorrow morning. >>> >>> The updated md5sum is 936b48fdf816b0341c74ba73a42348c0. Nothing else changed. >> >> >> I can't seem to find the original file but if you still have it can >> you extract and diff -Naur them, might just be my paranoia talking but >> we don't want to end up with another xz scenario. If that's what you >> meant by nothing else changed then ignore this message. > Paranoia is not always bad. Andy Grove once put it this way: "Only the > paranoid survive." Intel should have heeded that. > > Anyway - I share your qualms about this incident and I'm a bit appalled > how something like this seems to be just shrugged off in this thread. It wasn't just shrugged off in this thread. I found the problem a day after I updated the book to version 33.0. It is a part of our QA process. I checked it out and found it not harmful. I then updated the book for the change and made an announcement here. > Especially given the xz-disaster and the horrendous threat-situation of > today. > > Creditably, one user, Adrian Ho, actually bothered to ask the developers > for an explanation and so at least made them aware that this did not go > unnoticed: https://groups.google.com/g/protobuf/c/JnT34gSlL2k > > I find the developer's reply unsatisfactory, as it lacks an apology and > an assurance that this won't happen again in the future. Fortunately, I > don't need "protobuf". Yes, the reply was a bit weak. -- Bruce -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/blfs-dev Unsubscribe: See the above information page