Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:57:42 +0200 From: "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@FreeBSD.org> To: Andrew Pantyukhin <sat@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: <20060926165741.GA8931@zaphod.nitro.dk> In-Reply-To: <200609260527.k8Q5RG9C078413@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200609260527.k8Q5RG9C078413@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? 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. -- Simon L. Nielsen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060926165741.GA8931>