Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 10:24:06 +0200 From: Massimo Lusetti <massimo@cedoc.mo.it> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: freebsd security <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org>, Brent Casavant <b.j.casavant@ieee.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Survey Message-ID: <1148286246.4303.3.camel@massimo.datacode.it> In-Reply-To: <44714FBB.4000603@samsco.org> References: <4471361B.5060208@freebsd.org> <20060521231657.O6063@abigail.angeltread.org> <44714FBB.4000603@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 23:44 -0600, Scott Long wrote: > ports tree in the process, the end result is a bit more undefined. One > thing that I wish for is that the ports tree would branch for releases, > and that those branches would get security updates. I know that this > would involve an exponentially larger amount of effort from the ports > team, and I don't fault them for not doing it. Still, it would be nice > to have. Yes, totally agree. That's the way OpenBSD ports tree works and it worked very well for me. Thus not to say FreeBSD's one didn't, but it takes a lot more attention, which isn't always a bad thing ;) -- Massimo.run();
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1148286246.4303.3.camel>