Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 02:30:01 GMT From: Paul Beard <paulbeard@gmail.com> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/177416: mail/postgrey has surfaced a bug in perl's taint checking Message-ID: <201303300230.r2U2U1GU011744@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/177416; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Paul Beard <paulbeard@gmail.com> To: Darren Pilgrim <ports.maintainer@evilphi.com> Cc: "bug-followup@FreeBSD.org" <bug-followup@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: ports/177416: mail/postgrey has surfaced a bug in perl's taint checking Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:25:10 -0700 On Mar 29, 2013, at 7:01 PM, Darren Pilgrim = <ports.maintainer@evilphi.com> wrote: > Yes, that would be the only way to know for sure which module is the = culprit. It's time-intensive, but it would be worth it to hunt down the = stale perl module. You could install them in dependency groups. At = least that way you can pare it down to a handful for which you must test = one by one, instead of all 600. I have no idea where to start with that. Is there a way to query for = what port requires a module? I keep searching but it seems like = everything is geared to find what ports you need to install rather than = what ports rely on X. The smarter option would have been to check dates = in /var/db/pkg and see what was updated when this started. But it looks = like every perl module was touched on March 22, with just a few on March = 23 =97 the ones that postgrey depends on. p5-IO was installed updated on = the 22nd. I would like to know what ports depend on that.=20 -- Paul Beard Are you trying to win an argument or solve a problem?=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201303300230.r2U2U1GU011744>