On Tuesday 20 December 2005 12:39, Marwan Burelle wrote: > The point is not that this is always true, but that you have to handle > those kinds of problems if you want to maintain a security branch for > ports.
The point is, that it is irrelevant. Ports are independant of the base system. There is no need for a security branch of the ports tree. The ports that rely on specifics in the base system, handle it themselves via BROKEN, FreeBSD_version and friends. The ports tree is only tagged for a specific release, so that release cdroms can be made. The only thing that makes sense is pre-compiled packages being updated for security branches of the base system - but, that is only worth-while if there's a large enough userbase that has an /etc/make.conf without NO_ flags. Since for example I have no need for Kerberos, I cannot use the FreeBSD provided packages for the ones that make sense, as they all link libgssapi (subversion pulls it in through www/neon, smbclient because of ports/90238 and thus kde*). -- Melvyn Sopacua [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD 6.0-STABLE Qt: 3.3.5 KDE: 3.4.3 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
