From owner-freebsd-security Sun Oct 1 14:40:24 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D009137B503; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 14:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id OAA52808; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 14:40:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 14:40:20 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway To: Andreas Alderud Cc: security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Security and FreeBSD, my overall perspective Message-ID: <20001001144020.B44714@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <002401c02b99$a07a8ab0$6400a8c0@XGod> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <002401c02b99$a07a8ab0$6400a8c0@XGod>; from aaldv97@student.vxu.se on Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 01:20:38PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message