Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:03:34 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@freebsd.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org, Stan Behrens <s.behrens@kon.de> Subject: Re: 6.2-STABLE / grep / Segmentation fault Message-ID: <20070404090334.GB32773@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20070404043714.GA27327@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <4610F941.3080009@kon.de> <46112DDF.2050706@kon.de> <461223C5.7030700@kon.de> <20070403201744.GA78661@xor.obsecurity.org> <20070403203950.GA79348@nagual.pp.ru> <20070404043714.GA27327@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 12:37:14AM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote: > Well if it can be shown to be suitably stable, yeah - it's usually a > bigger risk importing an unreleased version than just an isolated > patch that can be easily tested. We already import almost all patches from unofficial source The Fedora=20 Project (at the moment of the last touch by tjr@), see explanations at /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/grep/FREEBSD-upgrade why released version of grep is so bad. Exactly, we have 2.5.1 + unofficial patches while the latest official=20 version is 2.5.1a. We may continue trying to match Fedora or GNU CVS but need to decide which= =20 source is best today (and need to formally update to 2.5.1a first although= =20 2.5.1 vs 2.5.1a changes are cosmetical). --=20 http://ache.pp.ru/ --/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGE2nmVg5YK5ZEdN0RAlczAKCdXZNyRaSbj2WeQG2Zsm9UuyIZFwCfZSYb TcCVkqWFPNVQ1LTvZkh9fqs= =m+iH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070404090334.GB32773>