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. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1...@student.uu.se _______________________________________________ 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"