From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 24 18:06:38 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: doc@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 795E6106566C for ; Sat, 24 Jul 2010 18:06:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail.allbsd.org (gatekeeper-int.allbsd.org [IPv6:2001:2f0:104:e002::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE82C8FC19 for ; Sat, 24 Jul 2010 18:06:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from alph.d.allbsd.org (p2176-ipbf406funabasi.chiba.ocn.ne.jp [124.86.72.176]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.allbsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6OI6E7x097681; Sun, 25 Jul 2010 03:06:24 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) (authenticated bits=0) by alph.d.allbsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o6OI6DQf095965; Sun, 25 Jul 2010 03:06:13 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 03:04:41 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20100725.030441.130236231.hrs@allbsd.org> To: crispy@hushmail.com From: Hiroki Sato In-Reply-To: <20100724174334.1D95628049@smtp.hushmail.com> References: <20100724174334.1D95628049@smtp.hushmail.com> X-PGPkey-fingerprint: BDB3 443F A5DD B3D0 A530 FFD7 4F2C D3D8 2793 CF2D X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 23.1 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="--Security_Multipart(Sun_Jul_25_03_04_41_2010_197)--" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.3 at gatekeeper.allbsd.org X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (mail.allbsd.org [133.31.130.32]); Sun, 25 Jul 2010 03:06:30 +0900 (JST) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.6 required=13.0 tests=AWL,CONTENT_TYPE_PRESENT, RCVD_IN_PBL, SPF_SOFTFAIL, USER_IN_WHITELIST, X_MAILER_PRESENT autolearn=no version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on gatekeeper.allbsd.org Cc: doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 8.1-RELEASE Errata - Security Advisories X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 18:06:38 -0000 ----Security_Multipart(Sun_Jul_25_03_04_41_2010_197)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Crispy" wrote in <20100724174334.1D95628049@smtp.hushmail.com>: cr> Hi, cr> cr> Apologies if I am asking a silly question, but I'm curious what cr> decides whether a security advisory gets listed in a release cr> errata. My question relates specifically to the following two cr> documents: cr> cr> http://www.freebsd.org/releases/8.0R/errata.html cr> http://www.freebsd.org/releases/8.1R/errata.html cr> cr> The errata for 8.1 lists ten security advisories, all of which have cr> been corrected in 8.1-RELEASE, yet few of them even mention 8.1- cr> RELEASE in any form. On the other hand, the 8.0 errata lists only cr> three advisories, when it should contain many of the ones on the cr> 8.1 page. cr> cr> I do not mean to be critical if it is merely a case of documents cr> not being kept up to date, or a mistake being made in the 8.1 cr> errata. However, reading the errata for 8.1 makes it look as if cr> there are a lot of security issues with the release already. I find cr> this a bit confusing. Gr, the same list of SAs as in the Release Notes was accidentally included. I removed just now. Thank you for pointing out it. -- Hiroki ----Security_Multipart(Sun_Jul_25_03_04_41_2010_197)-- Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAkxLKzkACgkQTyzT2CeTzy1TgwCcCmHXdZQMNOBPMhJu/M2n4ZPH ie8AoNIoVZN43qc525f7sp1HGFLHH1oz =Kemf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----Security_Multipart(Sun_Jul_25_03_04_41_2010_197)----