Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 29 May 2003 15:16:43 +0200
From:      Miguel Mendez <>
To:        =?ISO-8859-1?Q? "=C0=EE=F6=CE?= Xin LI" <>
Subject:   Re: Apache 2.0
Message-ID:  <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, 29 May 2003 18:04:11 +0800
"=C0=EE=F6=CE Xin LI" <> wrote:

> Please allow a reasonable time for maintainers and portmgr@ to
> determine whether the port will be upgraded. During a port freeze, it
> usually takes more time to have a port upgraded, even when the update

Hmm, either you didn't understand what I meant or I wasn't clear enough.
I wasn't, by any means, demanding that this package is updated
immediately. It was simply an honest question: Whether it can be updated
before 5.1 gets out. I'm very aware of the fact that, during a ports
freeze, portmgr@ are the ones to decide if a commit goes in or not. Even
if the port is not updated, I think a message should be added, something

Warning: enabling mod_dav may pose a security risk.

And let the admin decide whether she is willing to use it. Marking the
port as FORBIDDEN is not a solution at all, IMHO.

> I have submitted a patch PR as ports/52768, you may want to access it
> through the web:

Thanks, I'll have a look at it.

> Please trust portmgr@ and maintainer of the port, because they are
> more familiar to the port, and all of them consider security as an
> important issue. They always do the Good Thing(TM) :P

Yes, I do trust them :)

        Miguel Mendez -
        EnergyHQ ::
        Tired of Spam? ->

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD)



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>