From owner-freebsd-qa Sun Sep 10 0:59:55 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-qa@freebsd.org Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8090C37B422; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 00:59:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from silvia.hip.berkeley.edu (sji-ca5-129.ix.netcom.com [209.109.234.129]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA02336; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 03:59:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.hip.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e8A7xi118484; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 00:59:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from asami) To: Kris Kennaway Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, qa@FreeBSD.org, taguchi@tohoku.iij.ad.jp Subject: Re: Making XFree86-4 the default References: From: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) Date: 10 Sep 2000 00:59:40 -0700 In-Reply-To: Kris Kennaway's message of "Sun, 10 Sep 2000 00:51:34 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 25 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 Sender: owner-freebsd-qa@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * From: Kris Kennaway * Well, I'd prefer the list of "people concerned about security of the * server" to include the ports wraith :-) It's not going to help us if * theres another vulnerability discovered in X 4 which could have been * prevented by an xwrapper. Sorry, your Ports Wraith just upgraded to 4.0.1 and is happily running an setuid XFree86.... ;) Kidding aside, if you think it is really necessary, why don't we include Xwrapper from 3.3.6 (we can make a separate port for this) as a requirement for a 4.0.1 Xserver? Will that work? * As for PAM, I suspect it would require an understanding of the access and * authentication mechanisms in X, which I don't have. Hmm. * Yep. John Baldwin was talking about doing a QA cycle anyway, and the * target date of Sep 21 seemed later than he was wanting anyway. What do you say, John? :) Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-qa" in the body of the message