Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:45:40 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Matthias Andree <ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: General: crypto in ports vs. RESTRICTED=... in Makefile Message-ID: <20030217214540.GD71679@rot13.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <m3znovdu3f.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> References: <m3znovdu3f.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--pQhZXvAqiZgbeUkD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 12:28:36PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I recently added a "RESTRICTED" tag to ports/databases/db41 and added a > db41-nocrypto port that uses the "nocrypto" version of DB 4.1.25.1. >=20 > Christian "naddy" Weisgerber asked whether this was right, I replied > that I took that procedure from the Porter's Handbook (that says crypto > code is to be tagged RESTRICTED), and Christian suggested that I take > this up on ports then. >=20 > So here we stand... >=20 > What's the consensus on tagging ports that contain cryptographic code > with "RESTRICTED"? Is this necessary, as documented in the Porter's > handbook, or is this obsolete or incorrect (and if so, why, and where > documented)? Is the port split into crypto and non-crypto correct? See my reply on cvs-all. The handbook is out of date. Kris --pQhZXvAqiZgbeUkD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+UVgDWry0BWjoQKURAmsoAKCVowaS72anO9rp2eLZ5mFiG9zVwwCg8xox Vl2gpnwIjGV3sl5onoF39pA= =rjU6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pQhZXvAqiZgbeUkD-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030217214540.GD71679>