From owner-freebsd-advocacy Tue Mar 9 11:35:40 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from peloton.physics.montana.edu (peloton.physics.montana.edu [153.90.192.177]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2350A152C7 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 11:35:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brett@peloton.physics.montana.edu) Received: from localhost (brett@localhost) by peloton.physics.montana.edu (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA21039; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 12:34:43 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from brett@peloton.physics.montana.edu) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 12:34:43 -0700 (MST) From: Brett Taylor To: Brett Glass Cc: Wes Peters , Bill Fumerola , Adam Turoff , freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Ports In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990309094137.04170100@localhost> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi, > The main reason to get RECENT (if not "cutting edge") ports is to > close security holes. No one's system should be compromised because he > or she can't get a version that's immune to the latest "skript kiddie" > exploit. Then aren't you tracking -STABLE or -CURRENT to get the latest security fixes to the OS? If not then you must be patching by hand. See, that's the SAME thing as patching the ports that won't work because you aren't tracking. > Give me a break. No one has asked me to maintain a port to date. As I told you before no one will ASK you to maintain a port - you volunteer and do it. There are at least, in my present ports tree that does not have any of the foreign language ports, 142 ports that have no maintainer. Do you use any of these? Maybe. Could you help by volunteering yourself as a maintainer by doing a simple send-pr with a patch saying you want to be the maintainer? Yes. Do you use software that hasn't been ported? If yes, could you do a port and be the maintainer for it? Yes. Does someone have to ask you to do this? NO! Since you seem to need to be asked, could you please maintain the lesstif port? I use it fairly frequently and I have to not have the latest greatest version. Or how about wget? I use that too and no one maintains it either. Or how about fixing libgtop so it will compile on 2.2.8 so I could try Gnome on my one remaining 2.2.8-STABLE machine. > What's more, if what you say above is correct, I *can't* maintain a port > on the 2.2.8 systems we're running here. > Because that would be silly and wasteful. It should be possible, in > fact easy, for support for earlier versions to be rolled in > automatically as the port maintainer goes about his or her usual work. If it's easy then go do it and stop complaining about it. Put your effort where your complaining is. I've told you in my other email who "owns" the code you want to work on. Write up some code, do a send-pr and let them look at it - maybe it'll get included. If it doesn't then you can start complaining, until then you're just crying wolf. Brett Taylor *********************************************************** Brett Taylor brett@peloton.physics.montana.edu * brett@daemonnews.org * * http://www.daemonnews.org/ * *********************************************************** To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message