Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 14:51:43 +0200 From: "Timur I. Bakeyev" <timur@gnu.org> To: "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, "Timur I. Bakeyev" <timur@gnu.org> Subject: Re: [net/samba3] Upgrade to Samba 3.0.25a Message-ID: <20070605125142.GE22215@com.bat.ru> In-Reply-To: <20070605093702.GB1026@zaphod.nitro.dk> References: <5fbf03c20706050031p6f25d02cyae7a91593e40171a@mail.gmail.com> <20070605082244.GB22215@com.bat.ru> <20070605093702.GB1026@zaphod.nitro.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:37:03AM +0200, Simon L. Nielsen wrote: > On 2007.06.05 10:22:44 +0200, Timur I. Bakeyev wrote: > > BTW. in cases like this, where the maintainer want to fix a security > issue but would prefer to wait with a full upgrade, you might want to > try and poke the FreeBSD Security Team (secteam@) since we might have > patches to only fix the issue security issue(s). Specifically for > Samba we normally do get patches from the Samba developers for their > security advisories. As a maintainer I get the patches as well, as well as an early access to the tarballs. But with such border cases when new release comes with new features and security fixes all together it's nice to have ability to provide both versions - old one with just sec fixes and new one with new features. As we don't have ports versioning yet, employing -devil suffix could be reasonable solution to provide both versions. With best regards, Timur Bakeyev.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070605125142.GE22215>