ports/177416: mail/postgrey has surfaced a bug in perl's taint checking

[Paul Beard]

The following reply was made to PR ports/177416; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Paul Beard <paulbeard at gmail.com>
To: Darren Pilgrim <ports.maintainer at evilphi.com>
Cc: "bug-followup at FreeBSD.org" <bug-followup at FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: ports/177416: mail/postgrey has surfaced a bug in perl's taint checking
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:22:15 -0700

 On Mar 29, 2013, at 12:11 PM, Darren Pilgrim =
 <ports.maintainer at evilphi.com> wrote:
 
 > Now I think you have a broken perl install that won't be fixed without =
 wiping out your entire perl install (perl, p5 modules, and everything =
 that uses perl), deleting distfiles, deleting work dirs, portsnapping a =
 fresh tree, then reinstalling perl and p5 modules *only* by way of =
 dependencies from other ports.
 
 Which is fine but doesn't answer any of the questions I have had about =
 this.=20
 
 =95	 Where does that older Socket file come into it?=20
 =95	Is p5-IO in the base, i.e., do the files installed by the port =
 replicate functionality that is now included in the base install? The =
 distinfo's modification date is May 17, 2011. The Makefile doesn't test =
 for a version. If so, why does it exist as a port? If it's only for =
 older versions, there's usually a test for that.=20
 =95	Is this just a namespace collision? Or cruft?=20
 =95	Where do the two file files differ? I could mount the cloned =
 copy of the filesystem that has the now-deleted perl tree on it and look =
 into it.=20
 
 
 --
 Paul Beard
 
 Are you trying to win an argument or solve a problem?=20