From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Sep 10 0:51:38 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A18037B422; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 00:51:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id AAA06098; Sun, 10 Sep 2000 00:51:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 00:51:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, qa@FreeBSD.org, taguchi@tohoku.iij.ad.jp Subject: Re: Making XFree86-4 the default In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 10 Sep 2000, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote: > People concerned about security of the server can continue using the > 3.3.6 (xtt-*) servers. I didn't know about PAM -- do you have any > idea what we can do about it? (I.e., how long will it take for > someone like you to add it back? :) 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. As for PAM, I suspect it would require an understanding of the access and authentication mechanisms in X, which I don't have. > Actually, since RSA is free now, we can do 4.1.5 immediately, right? 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. Kris -- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message