From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Jun 2 8:35:41 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from horst.bfd.com (horst.bfd.com [12.9.219.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAFBD37BF4F for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:35:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ejs@bfd.com) Received: from HARLIE.bfd.com (bastion.bfd.com [12.9.219.14]) by horst.bfd.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e52FZct78720 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:35:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:35:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "Eric J. Schwertfeger" To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Q about the priority of a port update 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 Yesterday I found out that my most recent port submission (lsh) is broken in a way that is critical to lsh, but lsh itself isn't a critical port. It's basically a GPL and fully patent-unencumbered implementation of the SECSH (ssh2) protocol. Basically, the lsh-authorize script is a wrapper around another program, sexp-conv. One of the flags to sexp-conv was changed (from -o to -f), which breaks the wrapper. However, lsh-authorize wasn't updated, and is only used when setting up lsh, so I was the first lsh user to report this problem, 4 days after the programs release. However, this will be an issue to new lsh users. So, do I submit a critical port update for a port that isn't critical? The fix is to patch one of the patches in lsh/patches, as I'm almost totally rewriting the lsh-authorize script in the first place due to heavy bash dependancy. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message