Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:54:19 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <code@apotheon.net> To: "freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Why do we not mark vulnerable ports DEPRECATED? Message-ID: <20110830205419.GA70668@guilt.hydra> In-Reply-To: <4E5D321D.9020209@FreeBSD.org> References: <4E5C79AF.6000408@FreeBSD.org> <20110830152920.GB69850@guilt.hydra> <4E5D321D.9020209@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:55:25AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 08/30/2011 08:29, Chad Perrin wrote: > >=20 > > Might that not interfere with the process of getting a new maintainer f= or > > a popular port when its previous maintainer has been lax (or hit by a > > bus)? >=20 > Sorry if I'm being dense, but I'm not seeing the connection. Can you > elaborate? I'll put it another way: Wouldn't it be easier for a new maintainer to pick up maintenance of a port if (s)he doesn't have to start over from scratch? --=20 Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] --pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk5dTfsACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKUpRgCZAcvnMShlnKh0bIsuFj46XIq7 cI4AoI9QvbPgzDLYo4yym0gg7y/+DoA2 =Secg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110830205419.GA70668>