this post was submitted on 24 May 2026
12 points (77.3% liked)
Programming
27417 readers
33 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments

And here the myth shows its head. No one is actually "vetting" 10s of thousand of packages, to a meaningful degree.
And all distros have rolling channels and testing channels, so the every X years part is mythical itself.
In the case of Debian, when is the mythical vetting taking place exactly? Whenever a Debian unstable/sid package gets updated? That's a rolling repo.
Or is it when world is frozen, and the unvetted packages which lived happily in "unstable" and "testing" will now magically get vetted on their way to "stable", in a few months (not six years as you imagined).
You clearly lack basic knowledge about what actually goes on in a distro release cycle.
You missed the point.
crates.iois a source registry. Debian ships binary packages (yes, including rust ones).Where do you think Debian gets source packages for C or C++ from? Did you think they get them in the (physical) mailbox? π
As for dynamic linking, the "security" argument for it has been discussed and debunked. You can search the web for discussions regarding that. Most arguments for
.sohas been debunked, in fact.Nothing is "automatic" when it comes to distro maintenance. Much more so when an upstream doesn't give a f*** about helping you patch your X years old version. If Red Hat, Canonical, ...etc wasn't actively paying developers to do maintenance, Debian wouldn't exist as it is. But even then, that only covers a very small fraction of core packages.
Pinning and vendoring are orthogonal.
The original talking points were about source supply chains. But people like you seem to confuse concerns across multiple chains from the individual upstream dev to the binary distro repo mirror.
Pinning is actually the only way to actually (almost*) guarantee that built code would work correctly. What distros sell you is "should work" and "API looks compatible" and "this patch hopefully doesn't break the interface".
And more ironically, why distros do is global pinning, so the problem is apparently not pinning itself, but upstreams choosing the pinning themselves, right? right?
"But they don't fully pin.. security updates smth smth"
Good. Let's continue..
Good.
The next best thing to pinning is semver-compatible updates.
Now you have an example where you will see that to "fix all CVEs", you need to run the total of TWO whopping commands.
You ran the first command already. The second is
cargo update(orcargo update <only_audit_mentioned_packages>if you want to be more precise.cargo updateonly does semver-compatible updates, as released, authorized, and supported by the upstreams, whose knowledge of the code and its interfaces infinitely trumps your random distro maintainer doing raw patching. This is how a coherent competent ecosystem operates.Some of what the distros do is actually not far away from this. If you looked close enough, you will find that it's not rare for a stated "frozen" version to be a complete lie, with distro patches effectively updating the distro source package to a later patch, or sometimes even minor version, without changing the version number.
But of course, they wouldn't tell you about any of that, because the myths must live on π.
While not completely misplaced, your confidence is inspiring π.