On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 07:27:51AM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:54:36PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > > Am 08.09.2011 13:52, schrieb Matt Burke:
> > > Changing to a hypothetical example, why would an Apache vulnerability in > > > mod_rewrite in the least bit bother a person who doesn't have the module > > > enabled, which I believe is the standard configuration? Would you prefer > > > Apache be deleted from ports if it took longer than expected to fix it? > > > > That wouldn't happen anyways because the package is actively maintained, > > unlike many of the ports the discussion is about. > > You (and others) place *far* too much emphasis on a piece of software > being "maintained" > > > What the current FreeBSD policy of actively deleting perfectly usable > > > ports > > > instead of putting a mild hurdle in the way is saying, is that FreeBSD > > > will > > > stop me doing what I may want to do because FreeBSD knows best. > > > > The port isn't perfectly usable (because that would mean it's usable in > > all circumstances for all advertised purposes, which is explicitly not > > the case in the light of known vulnerabilities). > > In which case just about no port is 'perfectly usable' since almost all > non-trivial software contains bugs - at least some of which are not > documented, meaning that it isn't usable in *all* circumstances for > *all* advertised purposes. I can't necessarily speak for everyone, but I suspect that this is why 'being "maintained"' is seen as important. All software has bugs; what is important is that they are fixed as they are discovered, rather than being left to rot. -- greg byshenk - gbysh...@byshenk.net - Leiden, NL _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
