From owner-freebsd-security  Sat Sep 30  0:59:54 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (winston.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.27.229])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 641A337B502; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 00:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by winston.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e8U7xNU97923;
	Sat, 30 Sep 2000 00:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com)
To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>
Cc: James Wyatt <jwyatt@rwsystems.net>,
	Roman Shterenzon <roman@xpert.com>, Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG>,
	security@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/mail/pine4 Makefile (fwd) 
In-Reply-To: Message from Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> 
   of "Fri, 29 Sep 2000 22:28:41 CDT." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009292216140.17675-100000@achilles.silby.com> 
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 00:59:23 -0700
Message-ID: <97919.970300763@winston.osd.bsdi.com>
From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

> That being said, I'm still finding it very difficult to rip myself away
> from pine.  I had considered suggesting a fork of 4.21 which would be
> audited and snprintfified, but the license seems to suggest that such an
> effort could only exist in the form of patches, which would be annoying.

Not really - that's what the patches/ subdirectory is for.  We'd
simply stop making it available as a package (mark it RESTRICTED) and
let pine users install it from the port.  Just because getting the
contents of patches/ merged back is desirable doesn't make it
mandatory.

- Jordan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message