From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 21 23:57:39 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96D416A41B for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:57:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 704EB13C457 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:57:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 10470 invoked by uid 399); 21 Jan 2008 23:57:38 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.4?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTP; 21 Jan 2008 23:57:38 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Message-ID: <4795316B.4040600@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:57:31 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kris Kennaway References: <2e420cc20801200650q19ed0d03h38a3152b26f22643@mail.gmail.com> <479375C0.30507@FreeBSD.org> <2e420cc20801210901k1e15fdep55b4829551114d50@mail.gmail.com> <47950E4C.1030104@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <47950E4C.1030104@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: P Bielecki , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: packages with security vulnerabilities X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:57:40 -0000 Kris Kennaway wrote: > I still don't understand what you claim is the problem :) We do not > specially update packages like perl; rather, *every* package is > frequently rebuilt and updated. If I understood the question correctly, I think the OP is asking about the frequency of rebuilding packages with security updates. In which case your answer is still correct, but leads to a new question, which is would it be possible to trigger an update for a port that has a security update sooner? Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection