On Sat, 27 Dec 2008, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
Hi Nikolay, Sebastian, Antoine,
[ Cc:ing the secret maintainers ;-]
Nikolay Sturm wrote on Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 09:37:16AM +0100:
* Ingo Schwarze [2008-12-26]:
I'm not really sure the patch is correct and doesn't break anything
else -
* Ingo Schwarze [2008-12-27]:
If i understand correctly, local systrace.filter files override the
global systrace.filter in infrastructure/db.
Ok, thanks for checking. I just committed your diff.
Nikolay
* Ingo Schwarze [2008-12-26]:
I'm not really sure the patch is correct and doesn't break anything
else - though i currently don't see why any port build should be
allowed to bind(2) inet(4) sockets.
We have two ports explicitly allowing binding to 0.0.0.0:0, devel/mico
and x11/gnustep/base.
Hello Nikolay,
thanks for having a look.
Nikolay Sturm wrote on Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 09:37:16AM +0100:
We have two ports explicitly allowing binding to 0.0.0.0:0,
devel/mico and x11/gnustep/base.
I first looked at devel/mico.
How do these cope with your proposed change?
Does denying
Hi Nikolay, Sebastian, Antoine,
[ Cc:ing the secret maintainers ;-]
Nikolay Sturm wrote on Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 09:37:16AM +0100:
* Ingo Schwarze [2008-12-26]:
I'm not really sure the patch is correct and doesn't break anything
else - though i currently don't see why any port build should be
When you have yp(8) configured for group(5) and passwd(5) support
on your ports build machine, some programs, for example tar(1),
will call functions like getgrnam(3), descending into yp_bind(2),
clntudp_create(3), clntudp_bufcreate(3), bindresvport_sa(3), and
ultimately bind(2).
The following
