From owner-freebsd-ports Mon Feb 17 13:45:42 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F78737B401 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:45:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (adsl-63-207-60-52.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [63.207.60.52]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF68E43FA3 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:45:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from rot13.obsecurity.org (rot13.obsecurity.org [10.0.0.5]) by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 716FF679DA; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:45:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by rot13.obsecurity.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4EBD41117; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:45:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:45:40 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway To: Matthias Andree Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: General: crypto in ports vs. RESTRICTED=... in Makefile Message-ID: <20030217214540.GD71679@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pQhZXvAqiZgbeUkD" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --pQhZXvAqiZgbeUkD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 12:28:36PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I recently added a "RESTRICTED" tag to ports/databases/db41 and added a > db41-nocrypto port that uses the "nocrypto" version of DB 4.1.25.1. >=20 > Christian "naddy" Weisgerber asked whether this was right, I replied > that I took that procedure from the Porter's Handbook (that says crypto > code is to be tagged RESTRICTED), and Christian suggested that I take > this up on ports then. >=20 > So here we stand... >=20 > What's the consensus on tagging ports that contain cryptographic code > with "RESTRICTED"? Is this necessary, as documented in the Porter's > handbook, or is this obsolete or incorrect (and if so, why, and where > documented)? Is the port split into crypto and non-crypto correct? See my reply on cvs-all. The handbook is out of date. Kris --pQhZXvAqiZgbeUkD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+UVgDWry0BWjoQKURAmsoAKCVowaS72anO9rp2eLZ5mFiG9zVwwCg8xox Vl2gpnwIjGV3sl5onoF39pA= =rjU6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pQhZXvAqiZgbeUkD-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message