Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:04:54 -0500 (EST) From: batz <batsy@vapour.net> To: Christopher Schulte <schulte+freebsd@nospam.schulte.org> Cc: lewwid <lewwid@telusplanet.net>, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG, Max Mouse <maxmouse@maxmouse.org> Subject: Re: PHP 4.1.2 Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203121656480.5001-100000@vapour.net> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020312155431.04f93ac0@pop3s.schulte.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Christopher Schulte wrote: :I don't think so. The port maintainers can upgrade their ports without :much fear of breaking the rest of the base OS, unlike commits to :STABLE. This is why RELENG_4_X was created. You get all the critical :fixes ( mostly security at this point ) without having to worry about all :the other muck in -STABLE that could possibly cause problems or change :expected behavior. : :No need to add unnecessary complexity. The ports work quite well as is. I don't see how my suggestion would change the way the ports work at all. It could work in paralell and co-exist quite peacefully. So just a point of clarification then. By what you are saying, I can infer that RELENG_4_X also includes security fixes in ports which I can cvsup on a daily basis, and by doing this, fix any ports which have been declared vulnerable. I should further be able to automaticly upgrade any ports which use the vulnerable one as a dependency, by cvsup'ing RELENG_4_X. This is true? Thx, -- batz To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0203121656480.5001-100000>