Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 09:34:08 +0100 (MET) From: Guido van Rooij <Guido.vanRooij@nl.cis.philips.com> To: fenner@parc.xerox.com (Bill Fenner) Cc: security-officer@freebsd.org, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory: FreeBSD-SA-96:18.lpr Message-ID: <199611260834.JAA21795@spooky.lss.cp.philips.com> In-Reply-To: <96Nov25.191950pst.177711@crevenia.parc.xerox.com> from Bill Fenner at "Nov 25, 96 07:19:39 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bill Fenner wrote: > In message <199611252218.XAA11972@gvr.win.tue.nl> security-officer wrote: > >Affects: FreeBSD 2.* > >Corrected: FreeBSD-current as of 1996/10/27 > > FreeBSD-stable as of 1996/11/01 > > Shouldn't this be something more like > > Affects: FreeBSD 2.0, 2.0.5, 2.1, 2.1.5 > Corrected: FreeBSD-current as of 1996/10/27 > FreeBSD-stable as of 1996/11/01 > FreeBSD 2.2 and 2.1.6 releases > > or something? The timing of the advisory and the statement "FreeBSD 2.*" > implies that 2.1.6 is affected, while the CVS tree says that the fix was in > 2.1.6 . Yes, if you know that 2.1.6 was based on FreeBSD-stable and was > released after 1996/11/01, then you can derive the same information, but why > not make it explicit? (Especially for the person who is browsing the security > advisories next year and comes across this one... "oh, shoot, 2.2 is > affected"...) Yes indeed. I'll send a revised one later today. -Guido
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611260834.JAA21795>