Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 02:55:21 -0500 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> To: Haim Ashkenazi <haim@babysnakes.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: keeping my freebsd secure... Message-ID: <20040613075521.GA15566@over-yonder.net> In-Reply-To: <pan.2004.06.13.07.30.38.232781@babysnakes.org> References: <pan.2004.06.12.09.01.59.52173@babysnakes.org> <40CB2BC2.4070201@mac.com> <pan.2004.06.13.00.02.49.681547@babysnakes.org> <40CBAC5A.4050507@meijome.net> <pan.2004.06.13.07.30.38.232781@babysnakes.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 10:30:39AM +0300 I heard the voice of Haim Ashkenazi, and lo! it spake thus: > > does the -STABLE branch on the ports offer all the security fixes > (the example file use -CURRENT)? I remember reading somewhere that > the -CURRENT ports are not guaranteed to compile under stable > system. There are no branches of the ports tree. Some ports have some conditionalization on the OS version, but they're the same ports. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040613075521.GA15566>