sysutils/cfs

[Erik Trulsson]

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
ertr1013 at student.uu.se