Re: pkg audit false negatives

Hi Roger, > On 11 Aug 2017, at 17:14, Remko Lodder wrote: > > Hi Roger, > >> On 11 Aug 2017, at 04:41, Roger Marquis wrote: >> >> In the past pkg-audit and even pkg-version have not been reliable tools >> where installed ports or packages have been

Re: pkg audit false negatives

It had been resolved for dovecot (it will now match both variants, since people might still have the old variant of the port installed) and there is a new paragraph added to the porters handbook which tells that we need to have a look at the vuxml entries. Thanks Remko. Hope this solves

Re: pkg audit false negatives

> On 11 Aug 2017, at 23:47, Roger Marquis wrote: > >> It had been resolved for dovecot (it will now match both variants, since >> people might still have >> the old variant of the port installed) and there is a new paragraph added to >> the porters handbook >> which tells

Re: pkg audit false negatives

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017, Remko Lodder wrote: If an entry is removed from the ports/pkg tree?s and it is also removed from VuXML, then yes, it will no longer get marked in your local installation. That?s a bit of a chicken and egg basically. Although I do not recall that it ever happened that ports

Re: pkg audit false negatives

Hi Roger, > On 11 Aug 2017, at 04:41, Roger Marquis wrote: > > In the past pkg-audit and even pkg-version have not been reliable tools > where installed ports or packages have been subsequently discontinued or > renamed. Today, however, I notice that dovecot2 is still