From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 22 08:24:12 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AD7416A421 for ; Mon, 22 May 2006 08:24:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from massimo@cedoc.mo.it) Received: from insomma.datacode.it (ip-174-86.sn2.eutelia.it [83.211.174.86]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DD3343D49 for ; Mon, 22 May 2006 08:24:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from massimo@cedoc.mo.it) Received: from localhost (localhost.datacode.it [127.0.0.1]) by insomma.datacode.it (Postfix) with SMTP id 829542C906 for ; Mon, 22 May 2006 10:24:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from insomma.datacode.it (localhost.datacode.it [127.0.0.1]) by insomma.datacode.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D3342C90A; Mon, 22 May 2006 10:24:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from massimo.datacode.it (massimo.datacode.it [192.168.1.13]) by insomma.datacode.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE9122C906; Mon, 22 May 2006 10:24:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Massimo Lusetti To: Scott Long In-Reply-To: <44714FBB.4000603@samsco.org> References: <4471361B.5060208@freebsd.org> <20060521231657.O6063@abigail.angeltread.org> <44714FBB.4000603@samsco.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: CEDOC - Modena Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 10:24:06 +0200 Message-Id: <1148286246.4303.3.camel@massimo.datacode.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 (2.0.4-7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 22 May 2006 12:40:54 +0000 Cc: freebsd security , FreeBSD Stable , Colin Percival , Brent Casavant Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Survey X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 08:24:12 -0000 On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 23:44 -0600, Scott Long wrote: > ports tree in the process, the end result is a bit more undefined. One > thing that I wish for is that the ports tree would branch for releases, > and that those branches would get security updates. I know that this > would involve an exponentially larger amount of effort from the ports > team, and I don't fault them for not doing it. Still, it would be nice > to have. Yes, totally agree. That's the way OpenBSD ports tree works and it worked very well for me. Thus not to say FreeBSD's one didn't, but it takes a lot more attention, which isn't always a bad thing ;) -- Massimo.run();