From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 9 05:34:53 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EED71106564A for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 05:34:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from ch-smtp04.sth.basefarm.net (ch-smtp04.sth.basefarm.net [80.76.153.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A3758FC19 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 05:34:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c83-255-51-20.bredband.comhem.se ([83.255.51.20]:22664 helo=falcon.midgard.homeip.net) by ch-smtp04.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1R1tcV-0004Ss-De for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 07:27:20 +0200 Received: (qmail 95351 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2011 07:27:18 +0200 Received: from owl.midgard.homeip.net (10.1.5.7) by falcon.midgard.homeip.net with ESMTP; 9 Sep 2011 07:27:18 +0200 Received: (qmail 5555 invoked by uid 1001); 9 Sep 2011 07:27:51 +0200 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:27:51 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson To: Matthias Andree Message-ID: <20110909052751.GB5505@owl.midgard.homeip.net> References: <4E651DCF.30605@FreeBSD.org> <201109052146.p85Lkous037023@fire.js.berklix.net> <4E67935C.6080702@aldan.algebra.com> <4E68AC85.4060705@icritical.com> <4E68F34C.6090504@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E68F34C.6090504@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Originating-IP: 83.255.51.20 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1R1tcV-0004Ss-De. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp04.sth.basefarm.net 1R1tcV-0004Ss-De c08b649a05b1bf0e925a0dcce555c6f0 Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sysutils/cfs X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 05:34:54 -0000 On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:54:36PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > Am 08.09.2011 13:52, schrieb Matt Burke: > > > Changing to a hypothetical example, why would an Apache vulnerability in > > mod_rewrite in the least bit bother a person who doesn't have the module > > enabled, which I believe is the standard configuration? Would you prefer > > Apache be deleted from ports if it took longer than expected to fix it? > > That wouldn't happen anyways because the package is actively maintained, > unlike many of the ports the discussion is about. You (and others) place *far* too much emphasis on a piece of software being "maintained" > > > What the current FreeBSD policy of actively deleting perfectly usable ports > > instead of putting a mild hurdle in the way is saying, is that FreeBSD will > > stop me doing what I may want to do because FreeBSD knows best. > > The port isn't perfectly usable (because that would mean it's usable in > all circumstances for all advertised purposes, which is explicitly not > the case in the light of known vulnerabilities). In which case just about no port is 'perfectly usable' since almost all non-trivial software contains bugs - at least some of which are not documented, meaning that it isn't usable in *all* circumstances for *all* advertised purposes. -- Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se