Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 14:40:20 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Andreas Alderud <aaldv97@student.vxu.se> Cc: security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Security and FreeBSD, my overall perspective Message-ID: <20001001144020.B44714@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <002401c02b99$a07a8ab0$6400a8c0@XGod>; from aaldv97@student.vxu.se on Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 01:20:38PM %2B0200 References: <002401c02b99$a07a8ab0$6400a8c0@XGod>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 01:20:38PM +0200, Andreas Alderud wrote:
> I think it would be wise to have three ports of the ``same´´ package.
> My idea is to have lets say -SECURE, -STABLE - and CURRENT (the same could
> be done with FreeBSD itself).
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The ports
collection isn't branched into -stable and -current versions, and I
don't see any real benefits to doing that. It should work the same with both.
> The real advantage of this would be if the BSDs would have a unified ports
> system, as proposed by Chris Coleman, and incorperate the ideas of Jordans
> paper on the future package system. [...]
This doesn't sound relevant to the current FreeBSD ports collection -
if OpenPackages want to stratify their ports collection, they can do
what they like :-)
Kris
--
In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
-- Charles Forsythe <forsythe@alum.mit.edu>
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?20001001144020.B44714>