From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Jun 3 6:56:58 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from perec.uol.com.br (perec.uol.com.br [200.231.206.204]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 013AA37B403 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 06:56:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lioux@uol.com.br) Received: from ppp104-bsace7020.telebrasilia.net.br (ppp104-bsace7020.telebrasilia.net.br [200.181.48.104]) by perec.uol.com.br (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA23778 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:58:08 -0300 (BRT) Received: (qmail 884 invoked by uid 1001); 3 Jul 2001 13:57:03 -0000 From: "Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira" Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 10:56:41 -0300 To: Alexander Langer Cc: sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, jedgar@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/27839: Update mail/qpopper to version 4.0.3 Message-ID: <20010703105641.A753@Fedaykin.here> References: <200106021857.f52IvHs09944@freefall.freebsd.org> <200106021950.f52Jowo52032@mail.uic-in.net> <20010603135017.A2289@kawoserv.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010603135017.A2289@kawoserv.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de>; from alex@big.endian.de on Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 01:49:55PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 01:49:55PM +0200, Alexander Langer wrote: > Thus spake Maxim Sobolev (sobomax@mail-in.net): > > > > Assign to jedgar, a member of the Security-Officer Team. > > Why? Maintainer of the port is committer, so IMO he could take > > actions necessary. I wonder why member of the Security-Officer > > Team could do this job better. > > I first wanted to assign it to both, lioux and a security-officer team > member (but that's not possible). Then I decided that assigning it to > the security officer is more important, because it's a security risk > and one has to write an advisory anyways. Yet another reason for us to consider a gnats replacing in the future. (fearing another bikeshed) > But, to be honest, I was quite unsure with doing that and admit that > it could have been wrong :-) Well, I do not resent this being assigned to a security-officer team member. :) At least, the problem was taken care of. However, I am not sure what could have been done that I couldn't have done myself. The fix was known and indeed pretty simple, updating the distfile version. I am not territorial with my ports, a fix should be committed if it is REALLY necessary. sobomax, will and others have committed to ports under maintainer and I've thanked them for doing so. In fact, I appreciate the commit giving quick response to the problem. Nevertheless, we should assign at least a 1 day time out to the maintainer before action is taken unless the update can't wait (this is one of those gray bikeshed shade areas). At least, a BROKEN flag state should be committed in between. Given some complex ports (such as qmail master port), sometimes the maintainer is the most appropriate person to handle an update since it may break lots of slave ports. Just a thought for future actions. My 2 cents, -- Mario S F Ferreira - UnB - Brazil - "I guess this is a signature." lioux at ( freebsd dot org | linf dot unb dot br ) flames to beloved devnull@someotherworldbeloworabove.org feature, n: a documented bug | bug, n: an undocumented feature To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message