Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:36:36 -0400 From: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-vuxml@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/portaudit-db/database portaudit.txt portaudit.xlist portaudit.xml Message-ID: <20040817143636.59bcabe0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20040817182512.GA46244@madman.celabo.org> References: <20040817122453.05edaaea@localhost> <56FC3488-F075-11D8-924A-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> <20040817175847.GC43426@madman.celabo.org> <20040817140521.1d0f252d@localhost> <20040817182512.GA46244@madman.celabo.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:25:12 -0500 "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@freebsd.org> wrote: [SNIP] > Thank you, I'm braindead lately. We don't need another element or > anything, we can just use a fixed string instead of a date string. I > prefer > > <discovered>unspecified</discovered> > > but the others (in lower case) might be OK, also. But let's just pick > one. > > I'll have to check if this breaks anything existing, but I feel it will > be easy to accomodate. I like unknown over unspecified. Unspecified makes me think that a discovery date was never released by the developers while unknown just means that we don't know or can't prove it. -- Tom Rhodes
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040817143636.59bcabe0>