Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 09:44:07 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Doug Hardie <bc979@lafn.org> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Subject: Re: Upcoming Releases Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.20.1603160941170.10352@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <D7F159DB-757F-4637-A9A7-B9F4C10F665C@lafn.org> References: <EEFD0376-2038-4801-9A7A-BF342B66F029@lafn.org> <20160305181742.9c3abe96.freebsd@edvax.de> <DE7BAC1A-0B40-4B2A-861A-6AE7B16FAC0D@lafn.org> <DBC62E3B-B07D-4A3F-AD22-E3EB62484725@lafn.org> <alpine.BSF.2.20.1603152209110.3734@wonkity.com> <D7F159DB-757F-4637-A9A7-B9F4C10F665C@lafn.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016, Doug Hardie wrote: > >> On 15 March 2016, at 21:11, Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Doug Hardie wrote: >> >>> I recently saw a comment in one of the maillists that 11.0 was likely to have the new packetized base feature. That tells me that 11.0 is most likely to be dicey to work with. I am reminded when the new pkg system came out and the supporting servers were compromised. >> >> To the best of my knowledge, there was no relation between pkg and any compromises. > > There was a period where the regular pkg servers were not available because they had to be rebuilt. I don't recall the dates. It was not pkg_ng, but the first major revision to pkg after that. Sure. But many systems were rebuilt at that time, it was a concern over security in general, not pkg specifically.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.20.1603160941170.10352>