Date: 04 Aug 2003 17:46:10 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-security-local@be-well.no-ip.com> To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-03:08.realpath Message-ID: <44smohjdul.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <20030804210016.GB10339@madman.celabo.org> References: <200308040004.h7404VVL030671@freefall.freebsd.org> <20030804101130.GA51954@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <200308040004.h7404VVL030671@freefall.freebsd.org> <3F2E1B42.8BDE2215@grosbein.pp.ru> <20030804085018.GA24017@rz-ewok.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> <200308040004.h7404VVL030671@freefall.freebsd.org> <3F2E1B42.8BDE2215@grosbein.pp.ru> <20030804210016.GB10339@madman.celabo.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@freebsd.org> writes: > Thank you for the suggestion. Would you care to post _exactly_ what > wording you think would be better? I cannot think of a way to do so > without being redundant or misleading. I have no desire to add a > ``Not affected:'' line. Especially at times when we have two -STABLE > branches (as we will soon for 4.x and 5.x), it will be common that > there is a bug in one release but not another higher-numbered one. I suppose you could include the file versions for which the bug no longer affected -STABLE. It's not always easy to determine, but it certainly was in this case. It only took me 5 minutes to work it out on my own, so I'm not convinced of the value, but I suppose it meets what some others were asking for, and I don't *think* it makes the advisory more confusing.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44smohjdul.fsf>