Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 24 May 2002 21:44:19 +0400
From:      "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru>
To:        Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Cc:        Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>, imp@village.org, bts@babbleon.org, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, portmgr@FreeBSD.ORG, core@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: My position on commiters guide 10.4.4
Message-ID:  <20020524174419.GA4565@nagual.pp.ru>
In-Reply-To: <20020523144707.A99392@xor.obsecurity.org>
References:  <20020522134124.GA98620@nagual.pp.ru> <200205232031.g4NKVF9c009501@Magelan.Leidinger.net> <20020523144707.A99392@xor.obsecurity.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--gKMricLos+KVdGMg
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 14:47:07 -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 10:31:15PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > On 22 Mai, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> >=20
> > >> We are not protected against every possible attack, but we are at le=
ast
> > >> safe against some of them.
> > >=20
> > > Well, it is always easy to assign task needed to be done to somebody =
else,
> > > saying - he (porter) must do part of security officer work. Do you wa=
nt to
> > > do it by yourself, for example, instead of poiting on somebody else (=
me)?
> > > If yes, we can announce excellent new position "ports security office=
r" =20
> > > for such type of work.
> >=20
> > That's a full time job for more than one person.
> >=20
> > I follow the rule for the ports I maintain. I don't have a problem with
> > it. And it seems you are the only one voting for the removal of the
> > rule. So if you don't want to life with the rule, I suggest to you to
> > not update ports where you have to follow the rule. At least this is
> > what I would do if I do not want to follow the rule.
>=20
> I think that's the best advice.

In case some of you not read my original message to the end, here is the=20
quote indicating that this advice is originally mine:

Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> In case this rule stays as is, I forced to officially declare that I=20
> will not touch any re-rolled port anymore until its version number will=
=20
> be changed, since following 10.4.4 rule is against principles of common=
=20
> sense in form I have them.

--=20
Andrey A. Chernov
http://ache.pp.ru/

--gKMricLos+KVdGMg
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD)

iQCVAwUBPO578+JgpPLZnQjrAQHToAP9HoblcHmqvCZXmk4X7JfxqaPQr/cKkEkI
8eGFZQs1vQfa4oO/DZR2EOV0mTCkH13TVvwr8tIPZh89lwzab/412+FAWxlzd+Bb
xsrcd8ZtoQeVCWFi1sPBfXK60YuYR9bu2ShSW7K7b7McMsDzKDeE0dNuQ2zVF5Vu
m2e3woHElLo=
=Zogz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--gKMricLos+KVdGMg--

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020524174419.GA4565>