Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 17:57:45 -0400 (EDT) From: mi@aldan.algebra.com To: obrien@FreeBSD.org Cc: kris@obsecurity.org, ache@nagual.pp.ru, ru@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/stdlib strtol.c strtoll.c strtoq.c strtoul.c strtoull.c strtouq.c Message-ID: <200109052157.f85Lvkm01429@misha.privatelabs.com> In-Reply-To: <20010905085339.C95963@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5 Sep, David O'Brien wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 07:35:17AM -0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote: >> > Vulnerabilities in ports are indexed by the port version: when we >> > fix a vulnerability, the version gets bumped, and it's trivial to >> > check whether the installed port is vulnerable. >> >> I realized, that I just recently saw such lines in some of ports' >> patch files. They annoyed me -- at the source level, and I wonder if >> they should be removed, because they never make it to the binary >> anyway... > > NO! They should not be removed. If port maintainer feels they help him > and want them in the patches, leave them alone. Peroid. It would help consistency, if we could decide one way or the other, so they can either be added or removed everywhere. Until such decision is made (if ever), of course, it remains a maintainer's call. Period. -mi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200109052157.f85Lvkm01429>