From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 29 06:17:28 2003 Return-Path: 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 BCB2437B401 for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 06:17:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mindfields.energyhq.es.eu.org (73.Red-213-97-200.pooles.rima-tde.net [213.97.200.73]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A999E43F3F for ; Thu, 29 May 2003 06:17:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org) Received: from scienide.energyhq.es.eu.org (scienide.energyhq.es.eu.org [192.168.100.1]) by mindfields.energyhq.es.eu.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 46C242C3B2; Thu, 29 May 2003 15:16:58 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 15:16:43 +0200 From: Miguel Mendez To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q? "=C0=EE=F6=CE?= Xin LI" Message-Id: <20030529151643.38ccd4b7.flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20030529084853.35ac9c06.flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.11claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.0) X-Face: 1j}k*2E>Y\+C~E|/wehi[:dCM,{N7/uE3o# P,{t7gA/qnovFDDuyQV.1hdT7&#d)q"xY33}{_GS>kk'S{O]nE$A`T|\4&p\&mQyexOLb8}FO List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 13:17:29 -0000 --=.YAS9x:KMZ6dp9l 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 like: *************************************************** 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: > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3D52768 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 :) Cheers, --=20 Miguel Mendez - flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org EnergyHQ :: http://www.energyhq.tk Tired of Spam? -> http://www.trustic.com --=.YAS9x:KMZ6dp9l Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+1gg+nLctrNyFFPERAraNAJ4mDcLKM+VN5PPGWJPfeix4CwzDWwCgqYNd knVyecML8p4Hx31siBZcUmo= =jEaz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=.YAS9x:KMZ6dp9l--