From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 9 08:27:08 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 39DD8106566B; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 08:27:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from byshenknet@byshenk.net) Received: from portland.byshenk.net (portland.byshenk.net [69.168.53.243]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEB648FC0C; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 08:27:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from portland.byshenk.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by portland.byshenk.net (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p897n5KB090748; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 00:49:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from byshenknet@portland.byshenk.net) Received: (from byshenknet@localhost) by portland.byshenk.net (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id p897n4xa090747; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 00:49:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from byshenknet) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 00:49:04 -0700 From: Greg Byshenk To: Erik Trulsson Message-ID: <20110909074904.GI13219@portland.byshenk.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> <20110909052751.GB5505@owl.midgard.homeip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110909052751.GB5505@owl.midgard.homeip.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on portland.byshenk.net Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Matthias Andree 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 08:27:08 -0000 On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 07:27:51AM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote: > 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. I can't necessarily speak for everyone, but I suspect that this is why 'being "maintained"' is seen as important. All software has bugs; what is important is that they are fixed as they are discovered, rather than being left to rot. -- greg byshenk - gbyshenk@byshenk.net - Leiden, NL