From owner-cvs-all Mon Feb 21 23: 6:39 2000 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from m3.cs.berkeley.edu (m3.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.45.179]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA9B237B60B; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:06:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from asami@stampede.cs.berkeley.edu) Received: from silvia.hip.berkeley.edu (sji-ca1-68.ix.netcom.com [209.109.232.68]) by m3.cs.berkeley.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA99653; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:06:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from asami@stampede.cs.berkeley.edu) Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.hip.berkeley.edu (8.9.3/8.6.9) id XAA91816; Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:05:33 -0800 (PST) To: Kris Kennaway Cc: Chuck Robey , Satoshi Taoka , 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 References: From: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) Date: 21 Feb 2000 23:05:14 -0800 In-Reply-To: Kris Kennaway's message of "Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:34:13 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 16 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.5 Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk * From: Kris Kennaway * 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? The initial reasoning of the split was because pine4 was not tested and stable enough. However, that was July 1998 and even the NO_LATEST_LINK has moved in June 1999. I don't see why we need to keep pine3 at this point. Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message