Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 13:35:27 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Matt Piechota <piechota@argolis.org>, Aaron Namba <aaron@namba1.com>, <security@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: RE: Is FreeBSD's tar susceptible to this? Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021001133156.03609ec0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <200210011928.g91JSOdI045047@apollo.backplane.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20021001113225.034331b0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20021001122135.0344e410@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 01:28 PM 10/1/2002, Matthew Dillon wrote: > In our case, we have a simple recourse for 'tar' if the the gnu/tar > people are unable to stabilize their final product. We find a fairly > stable version and we fork it in our tree. I agree. And while folks are correct that licensing is not the only issue here, why not take the opportunity to adopt something BSD-licensed instead? At the same time, it would be possible to integrate bzip instead of invoking it as a separate process. This would make it more efficient when we go to bzip for ports and packages. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20021001133156.03609ec0>