Date: 10 Sep 2000 00:59:40 -0700 From: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, qa@FreeBSD.org, taguchi@tohoku.iij.ad.jp Subject: Re: Making XFree86-4 the default Message-ID: <vqc3dj8vfrn.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: Kris Kennaway's message of "Sun, 10 Sep 2000 00:51:34 -0700 (PDT)" References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009100047210.2960-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> * 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. Sorry, your Ports Wraith just upgraded to 4.0.1 and is happily running an setuid XFree86.... ;) Kidding aside, if you think it is really necessary, why don't we include Xwrapper from 3.3.6 (we can make a separate port for this) as a requirement for a 4.0.1 Xserver? Will that work? * As for PAM, I suspect it would require an understanding of the access and * authentication mechanisms in X, which I don't have. Hmm. * 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. What do you say, John? :) Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?vqc3dj8vfrn.fsf>