Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:21:06 -0500 From: "Conrad J. Sabatier" <conrads@cox.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sysutils/cfs Message-ID: <20110909062106.6021280f@cox.net> In-Reply-To: <4E68F34C.6090504@FreeBSD.org> References: <4E651DCF.30605@FreeBSD.org> <201109052146.p85Lkous037023@fire.js.berklix.net> <CADLo838dMd5=TjRF5ffiaPH7o0%2BpeWgaqbQqEfDb3EP-n4ec8A@mail.gmail.com> <4E67935C.6080702@aldan.algebra.com> <CADLo838QkAjq2jPXy_c5MTYW09tZJMvWTNndo3Pnfa3=1c-5Og@mail.gmail.com> <4E68AC85.4060705@icritical.com> <4E68F34C.6090504@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:54:36 +0200 Matthias Andree <mandree@freebsd.org> wrote: > Am 08.09.2011 13:52, schrieb Matt Burke: > > > What the current FreeBSD policy of actively deleting perfectly > > usable ports instead of putting a mild hurdle in the way is saying, > > is that FreeBSD will stop me doing what I may want to do because > > FreeBSD knows best. > > The port isn't perfectly usable (because that would mean it's usable > in all circumstances for all advertised purposes, which is explicitly > not the case in the light of known vulnerabilities). And just how in the world can you verify that *any* port is "perfectly usable" by your definition? Should we just go ahead and delete every port in the collection then? -- Conrad J. Sabatier conrads@cox.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110909062106.6021280f>