Along with the openvpn backport that jca committed, I also backported
and tested mail/libetpan. OK?
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/mail/libetpan/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.25
diff -u -p -r1.25 Makefile
--- Makefile
Paul Irofti writes:
> Along with the openvpn backport that jca committed, I also backported
> and tested mail/libetpan. OK?
The problem is that the diff below bumps the lib major version.
For -stable it is better to avoid this as much as we can, since it means
that users have to rebuild all the
Right, so how about this?
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/mail/libetpan/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.25
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.25 Makefile
--- Makefile11 Nov 2016 12:07:00 - 1.25
+++ Makefile16 May 2017 16:
On Tue, 16 May 2017 19:32:39 +0300, Paul Irofti wrote:
> Right, so how about this?
I think it's better that way. Thanks for taking care of. ok danj@
> Index: Makefile
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/ports/mail/libetpan/Makefile,v
> retrievi
On 5/16/2017 8:35 PM, Daniel Jakots wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2017 19:32:39 +0300, Paul Irofti wrote:
Right, so how about this?
I think it's better that way. Thanks for taking care of. ok danj@
What I am worried with this approach of cherry-picking specific CVE
patches is that we might skip o
Paul Irofti writes:
> Right, so how about this?
Looks fine to me, ok jca@
--
jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
Paul Irofti writes:
> On 5/16/2017 8:35 PM, Daniel Jakots wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 19:32:39 +0300, Paul Irofti wrote:
>>
>>> Right, so how about this?
>>
>> I think it's better that way. Thanks for taking care of. ok danj@
>
> What I am worried with this approach of cherry-picking specific
