From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 9 17:08:17 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 109DF16A4AB for ; Tue, 9 May 2006 17:08:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nalists@scls.lib.wi.us) Received: from mail.scls.lib.wi.us (mail.scls.lib.wi.us [198.150.40.25]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1A6543D53 for ; Tue, 9 May 2006 17:08:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nalists@scls.lib.wi.us) Received: from [172.26.2.238] ([172.26.2.238]) by mail.scls.lib.wi.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k49H8F3N051834; Tue, 9 May 2006 12:08:15 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from nalists@scls.lib.wi.us) Message-ID: <4460CC78.8050303@scls.lib.wi.us> Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 12:08:08 -0500 From: Greg Barniskis User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kris Kennaway References: <44605ED5.8090805@scii.nl> <20060509141943.GA88511@xor.obsecurity.org> <4460B7D6.9040502@scls.lib.wi.us> <20060509160258.GC89331@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20060509160258.GC89331@xor.obsecurity.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: questions@freebsd.org, albi Subject: Re: details about EOL (of FreeBSD 5.4) ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 17:08:17 -0000 Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 10:40:06AM -0500, Greg Barniskis wrote: >> If 2006 is accurate, this is registering on me as a significant POLA >> violation. Very hard to believe this is accurate. If accurate, what >> list/channel/forum should I have been paying more attention to? > > security@, and the website where this has been announced for a LONG > TIME. The policy and rationale is all there. OK, thanks. Searched back in my security@ archives and found it, plain as day. The discussion of 5.4's fate did happen long ago. I actually read it carefully at the time but didn't think much of it, believing we'd surely have our servers on 6.x by now. So I totally take back the POLA statement -- I knew this was coming and it was my mistake to forget and let mgmt. defer the upgrade plan. We'll do an interim hop from RELENG_5_4 to RELENG_5, and escalate our path to 6.x adoption. Actually, it'll be nice to wave the EOL stick to force some action on that. Running EOL server parts is against policy. =) -- Greg Barniskis, Computer Systems Integrator South Central Library System (SCLS) Library Interchange Network (LINK) , (608) 266-6348