Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 06:42:22 -0700 From: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> To: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> Cc: cem@freebsd.org, "Stephen J. Kiernan" <stevek@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r335402 - head/sbin/veriexecctl Message-ID: <201806201342.w5KDgMeS040038@slippy.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: Message from "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> of "Tue, 19 Jun 2018 23:21:04 -0700." <96021.1529475664@kaos.jnpr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <96021.1529475664@kaos.jnpr.net>, "Simon J. Gerraty" writes: > Conrad Meyer <cem@freebsd.org> wrote: > > First and foremost: nothing is actually signed, anywhere. The > > The signing of manifests is external. The veriexecctl tool is I assume > a straight copy of what's in NetBSD (I've not looked at it in at least a > decade). If this is correct, should it not be imported into the vendor branches first? What are the criteria to import through the vendor branches v.s. direct import into HEAD? Do I fail to understand a missing piece of information or is there an inconsistency? -- Cheers, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> FreeBSD UNIX: <cy@FreeBSD.org> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201806201342.w5KDgMeS040038>