From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Fri Jul 3 19:17:36 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC67A994338 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 19:17:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "wonkity.com", Issuer "wonkity.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BAF521F5; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 19:17:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t63JHK0o014362 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 3 Jul 2015 13:17:20 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) with ESMTP id t63JHKNZ014359; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 13:17:20 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 13:17:20 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block To: Matthew Seaman cc: David Wolfskill , freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Please help un-confuse me about vuxml In-Reply-To: <55968FC5.5010503@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: References: <20150703130103.GM1472@albert.catwhisker.org> <55968FC5.5010503@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (BSF 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Fri, 03 Jul 2015 13:17:20 -0600 (MDT) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 19:17:37 -0000 On Fri, 3 Jul 2015, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 2015/07/03 14:01, David Wolfskill wrote: >> And that combination of things catalyzed this note. >> >> Here's what I'm seeing: >> - There is a claim that the port to which I was trying to update was >> "vulnerable" per vuxml. > > vuxml currently states that netpbm versions /less than/ 10.35.96 are > vulnerable, and has done since about 48h ago. I had the same problem also yesterday. It was just a bug in the netpbm entry. Date disparities are likely due to differing time zones. Tried it just now, and the problem is fixed.