Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:34:13 -0800 (PST) From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net> Cc: Satoshi Taoka <taoka@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/mail/pine3 Makefile ports/mail/pine3/files Makefile ports/mail/pine3/patches patch-aa patch-ac patch-af patch-al ports/mail/pine3/scripts configure Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002211929270.51189-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002212221590.19049-100000@picnic.mat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Chuck Robey wrote: > I better start off revealing my prejudice, which is that I think most of > the versioned ports should not be there. The reasoning for this port > completely escapes me, though. All the versions of pine past 3.96 are > perfectly upwards compatible with 3.96, so I can see absolutely no reason > whatsoever for having this port around. I agree. Isn't this port also non-Y2K compliant, and full of security bugs? I'm pretty sure I've seen 'Jan 1, 1900' type messages from people using pine 3.96, and the latter problem seems logical since most of the later versions have fixed security problems of one sort or another. What reason is there to keep it around now that pine4 is well established and well developed? Kris ---- "How many roads must a man walk down, before you call him a man?" "Eight!" "That was a rhetorical question!" "Oh..then, seven!" -- Homer Simpson To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0002211929270.51189-100000>