Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 01:37:45 -0700 From: Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, "freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org>, secteam@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why do we not mark vulnerable ports DEPRECATED? Message-ID: <4E5CA159.4010404@delphij.net> In-Reply-To: <4E5C9C8A.1010105@FreeBSD.org> References: <4E5C79AF.6000408@FreeBSD.org> <20110830062541.GA5538@lonesome.com> <4E5C9C8A.1010105@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 08/30/11 01:17, Doug Barton wrote: > On 08/29/2011 23:25, Mark Linimon wrote: >> So, the right answer may be "it depends". > > I think my point is, it shouldn't. If a port is important/popular > than it will be quickly fixed. If not, it goes away. Everyone > wins. Personally I do support this idea. By the way vuxml is essentially a BROKEN if portaudit is installed. Perhaps we should have that in base system or the build cluster? Cheers, - -- Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> https://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! Live free or die -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJOXKFYAAoJEATO+BI/yjfBwkYH/2hDRqHEHztCDybJ4pE6u682 tURpASOWJgxkFn0xT1GF0VL9iwULWbboPdKVhWWPKAZiOWezJbepPeQv4Lcvbqqs GB28I6DPyRIDES1eqAVJ9RbjP8LgUCTMBu2LU8YCkB1Zrbg9fXD5I0amEXaDTVoc vBPM2uiWjx49/vgBRjSYKo2KG4MxOAt0PS+SlxXD5eeNodJmMLq8ipL6nA0ptA03 /l8ymf5wbNIWTmBm98CY1bIzxtVb1zcvkHPZRe4fPPXCFElrh6qCou09XJxoWg3P sTaf6kIpCxTcPsKCdAipo5OvcnXh66Kn4hlKpvc3mKwYr5jMN69d9KqSaLw0HM4= =02aU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E5CA159.4010404>