Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:55:40 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: Jeff D <jeffd6635@gmail.com> Cc: oscartheduck@gmail.com, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Newby Question: What to do when one port can't recognize another port? Message-ID: <4728430C.2010409@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <dcfc955c0710300805p5856c4f1i727d3f4e9531b579@mail.gmail.com> References: <dcfc955c0710291554x32441809y649bd95773d17b82@mail.gmail.com> <1193753280.20949.31.camel@james-desktop> <dcfc955c0710300715h1b296938od66617bebffe63ab@mail.gmail.com> <1193755257.20949.44.camel@james-desktop> <dcfc955c0710300805p5856c4f1i727d3f4e9531b579@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Jeff D wrote: > I've swapped in an Ubuntu disk, and I can say that Apache 2.2.4 & BerkeleyDB > 4.6.19 install just fine on Ubuntu right out of the box. There are security advisories against Apache 2.2.4. You should be using 2.2.6 instead. See: http://httpd.apache.org/security/vulnerabilities_22.html The ports system had the security fixes for Apache22 in place on the 9th September, only two days after apache-2.2.6 was released by the Apache foundation. Now, there isn't a compelling reason to use any particular version of BDB over any other with apache -- it simply doesn't need any of the new transactional capabilities or anything like that. Hence the way the updates have been prioritized. Cheers, Matthew - -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. Flat 3 7 Priory Courtyard PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW, UK -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHKEMM3jDkPpsZ+VYRAyJYAJ4k4VmjT49mpiaKw00ecVrNKHNBYgCdH1k7 AY9aIqGuPF4aMhuEJ+iFNLk= =y1gH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4728430C.2010409>