Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 13:58:23 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: igor@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu (Igor Roshchin) Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.8.4 questions... Message-ID: <199612042058.NAA11575@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199612041958.NAA21344@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu> References: <199612041951.MAA11333@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199612041958.NAA21344@alecto.physics.uiuc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 2.1.X is now dead unless Jordan and David (or Paul) decide to roll 'yet > > another' point release. > > > > > Is not 2.1.6. (which is claimed to be almost -stable) supposed > > > to have "stable" sendmail ? > > > > Yes, but since the 2.1.6 are already on CD-ROM it's really hard to > > change the bits w/out using an electron microscope. *grin* > > > > "Stable" doesn't imply bug-free or completely-secure. *All* software > > has bugs, but at some point the FreeBSD folks had to say 'this is the > > end of the 2.1.X series), and 2.1.6.1 is it. > > > > May be I am missing something, but I thought > 2.1.6. was supposed to get to the -stable release, and just than die. Nope, you have it backwards. '-stable' was the ongoing release that eventually became 2.1.5, 2.1.6, and 2.1.6.1. -stable was the name that was used as it changes, and the 'point releases' were the actual shippped (CD distributions) of the -stable branch. > THere should exist at least something which can be used > without too many changes for some period of time ;-> That would be 2.1.6.1. And, it's a good release except for bugs that weren't known about until *after* it was set in stone such as the sendmail bug. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612042058.NAA11575>