Date: 21 Feb 2000 23:05:14 -0800 From: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net>, Satoshi Taoka <taoka@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/mail/pine3 Makefile ports/mail/pine3/files Makefile ports/mail/pine3/patches patch-aa patch-ac patch-af patch-al ports/mail/pine3/scripts configure Message-ID: <vqcd7ppg1jp.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: Kris Kennaway's message of "Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:34:13 -0800 (PST)" References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002211929270.51189-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> * I agree. Isn't this port also non-Y2K compliant, and full of security * bugs? I'm pretty sure I've seen 'Jan 1, 1900' type messages from people * using pine 3.96, and the latter problem seems logical since most of the * later versions have fixed security problems of one sort or another. * * What reason is there to keep it around now that pine4 is well established * and well developed? The initial reasoning of the split was because pine4 was not tested and stable enough. However, that was July 1998 and even the NO_LATEST_LINK has moved in June 1999. I don't see why we need to keep pine3 at this point. Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?vqcd7ppg1jp.fsf>