Do you really need to download new versions at every build? I thought it was common practice to use the oldest safe version of a dependency that offers the functionality you want. That way your project can run on less up to date systems.
Most softwares do not include detailed security fixes in the change log for people to check; and many of these security fixes are in dependencies, so it is unlikely to be documented by the software available to the end user.
So most of the time, the safest “oldest safe” version is just the latest version.
Do you really need to download new versions at every build? I thought it was common practice to use the oldest safe version of a dependency that offers the functionality you want. That way your project can run on less up to date systems.
Most softwares do not include detailed security fixes in the change log for people to check; and many of these security fixes are in dependencies, so it is unlikely to be documented by the software available to the end user.
So most of the time, the safest “oldest safe” version is just the latest version.
So only protects like Debian do security backports?
Edit: why the downvote? Is this not something upstream developers do? Security fixes on older releases?
Backports for supported versions sure,.
That’s why there is an incentive to limit support to latest and maybe one previous release, it saves on the backporting burden.
Okay, but are you still going to audit 200 individual dependencies even once?
That’s what the “oldest safe version” is supposed to address.
Because everything is labeled safe and unsafe, right?
Your snark is tremendously conducive for a conversation. Go touch some grass.