Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:37:52 +0400 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" <sat@FreeBSD.org> To: "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/vuxml vuln.xml Message-ID: <cb5206420609261037h3e00d44btbca419a49ad89fb9@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20060926165741.GA8931@zaphod.nitro.dk> References: <200609260527.k8Q5RG9C078413@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060926165741.GA8931@zaphod.nitro.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/26/06, Simon L. Nielsen <simon@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 2006.09.26 05:27:16 +0000, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > > sat 2006-09-26 05:27:16 UTC > > > > FreeBSD ports repository > > > > Modified files: > > security/vuxml vuln.xml > > Log: > > - Update the unace advisory > > Why did you add the Secunia advisory in the body? Isn't it just > different wording for the same issues? The original advisory is only for 1.x. Secunia added some info about 2.x. > Also, it's generally a bad idea to use <ge> if the port isn't fixed > since you risk someone bumping port reversion etc. and therefor > marking the port as fixed when it really isn't. I understand. I used <le> because (1) this is a binary port and there won't be a patch and a bump, so <lt> version+bump does not make sense, (2) the bug has been confirmed in <=2.5 only, and winace team is not very public about security fixes, (3) I'm the maintainer and I think the port has outlived its usefulness, so I scheduled it for removal in a month unless we are surprised by a brand new unace binary. If you think that <gt> 0 or something like that is better, please tell me and I'll fix the advisory. Thanks!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420609261037h3e00d44btbca419a49ad89fb9>