Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:38:49 -0700 From: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> To: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: EoL dates Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20030824103515.02cbf388@popserver.sfu.ca> In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.1.20030824100546.02c8cc00@popserver.sfu.ca> References: <20030824170354.GA9172@rot13.obsecurity.org> <5.0.2.1.1.20030824064019.02d7d090@popserver.sfu.ca> <5.0.2.1.1.20030824064019.02d7d090@popserver.sfu.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 10:14 24/08/2003 -0700, I wrote: > Either I'm missing your point, or you're missing my point. There are > five release branches now which are "not officially supported", but I > have yet to see any circumstance where they have, in fact, not been > supported. If those branches were not being supported because people > were too busy to support them, I'd understand perfectly; but as far as I > can see, those branches *are* being supported. Oops. As hawkeyd@visi.com has just pointed out to me, I didn't look far enough; SA-03:01, :02, :03, :05, and :06 didn't have official patches for the unsupported branches. I'll go sit quietly in the corner now. Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.0.2.1.1.20030824103515.02cbf388>