From owner-freebsd-security Thu Aug 30 1:52: 7 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 071BC37B407; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 01:52:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cjc@earthlink.net) Received: from dialup-209.247.136.30.dial1.sanjose1.level3.net ([209.247.136.30] helo=blossom.cjclark.org) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.32 #2) id 15cNYN-0004gl-00; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 01:52:00 -0700 Received: (from cjc@localhost) by blossom.cjclark.org (8.11.4/8.11.3) id f7U8pVc12310; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 01:51:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cjc) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 01:51:31 -0700 From: "Crist J. Clark" To: Sheldon Hearn Cc: cjclark@alum.mit.edu, Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group , ijliao@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/29137: Brand New Tripwire-2.3.1 Port (fwd) Message-ID: <20010830015131.J9807@blossom.cjclark.org> Reply-To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu References: <20010829230711.H9807@blossom.cjclark.org> <96658.999160069@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <96658.999160069@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za>; from sheldonh@starjuice.net on Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 10:27:49AM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 10:27:49AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:07:12 MST, "Crist J. Clark" wrote: > > > As long as the maintainers are still willing to keep them up, I don't > > see any reason to remove them. Of course, if one of the maintainers > > (you for example) no longer wish to support one, unless someone else > > speaks up to support it, it should go. > > I think you're approaching this from the wrong angle. The default > should be to update existing ports rather than spawn new ones. Special > considerations may motivate you to add new ports (e.g. a new version of > a package with an incompatible configuration file syntax), but that > should never be the default. But weren't you the one who posted the reasons, and they are valid reasons, why there are different ports? -- Crist J. Clark cjclark@alum.mit.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message