From owner-freebsd-security  Tue Oct  1 12:35:55 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDBFE37B401
	for <security@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue,  1 Oct 2002 12:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [63.229.157.2])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D84F43E6A
	for <security@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue,  1 Oct 2002 12:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from brett@lariat.org)
Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.org [63.229.157.2])
	by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA20783;
	Tue, 1 Oct 2002 13:35:30 -0600 (MDT)
X-message-flag: Warning! Use of Microsoft Outlook is dangerous and makes your system susceptible to Internet worms.
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20021001133156.03609ec0@localhost>
X-Sender: brett@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 13:35:27 -0600
To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
Subject: Re: RE: Is FreeBSD's tar susceptible to this?
Cc: Matt Piechota <piechota@argolis.org>,
	Aaron Namba <aaron@namba1.com>, <security@FreeBSD.ORG>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-security.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-security>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-security>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

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