Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:36:49 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org> To: Peter Schultz <pmes@bis.midco.net> Cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: branches [was: Re: cvs commit: ports/www/firefox Makefile distinfo pkg-descrpkg-message mozconfig.in patch-Double.cpp patch-build_unix_run-mozilla] Message-ID: <20040212143649.GA20602@madman.celabo.org> In-Reply-To: <402B8376.7060206@bis.midco.net> References: <xzpisidbtvn.fsf@dwp.des.no> <1076508074.88428.14.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> <20040211122704.X93022@blues.jpj.net> <xzpk72tiah1.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20040211165940.Q98525@blues.jpj.net> <xzp4qtweqlf.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20040212031228.E31447@blues.jpj.net> <20040212102842.GC3148@FreeBSD.org> <402B7AFA.8040606@mindspring.com> <402B8376.7060206@bis.midco.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 07:45:26AM -0600, Peter Schultz wrote:
> Are there stable and current branches of the ports tree? I wouldn't
> think so, because then I don't think there'd have to be such a critical
> ports freeze. Having a better audited ports tree would be nice, like
> the other day when on of nectar's security patches to gaim got blown away.
No, there are no branches for the ports tree.
In the past I've considered having `security branches' for a *SMALL
SUBSET* of the ports tree. If there were such a thing, it wouldn't
include gaim :-), only widely-used server applications. But, there are
a few problems (for me) in making that happen. Among them:
Picking the subset. Agreement would be nigh impossible.
Actually building packages, particularly for non-x86 and for older
branches.
Time.
Cheers,
--
Jacques Vidrine NTT/Verio SME FreeBSD UNIX Heimdal
nectar@celabo.org jvidrine@verio.net nectar@freebsd.org nectar@kth.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040212143649.GA20602>