From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 4 08:03:54 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AE8216A4CE; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:03:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 189CF43FA3; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:03:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from lonesome.com (cs242719-195.austin.rr.com [24.27.19.195]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E110914688; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:03:47 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3FCEFD8D.3040104@lonesome.com> Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 03:25:33 -0600 From: Mark Linimon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030713 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Leidinger References: <200312040642.hB46gdJc053080@repoman.freebsd.org> <20031204120455.1e6b2d9c.Alexander@Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20031204120455.1e6b2d9c.Alexander@Leidinger.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/databases/kinterbasdb Makefile distinfopkg-descrpatch-_kinterbasdb_constants.c X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 16:03:54 -0000 > > >I have an update for both firebird ports in the queue. I haven't >committed them as the package doesn't work yet. The submitter wanted to >fix this, but it seems he's busy at the moment. > >Should I commit the actual version? > > Hmm ... normally my feeling would be to say "go ahead and wait", but if the current versions are still the ones marked Forbidden (security reasons) then I think they should probably be committed as-is since they would be better than something insecure. Perhaps even with 'broken, won't package' in the Makefile? I can see valid arugments for doing things either way. I myself won't be using the port(s) so it won't make any difference to me, I was just trying to iterate over old PRs. I would be ok with whatever you decide. mcl