ports security branch

[Melvyn Sopacua]

On Tuesday 20 December 2005 12:39, Marwan Burelle wrote:

> The point is not that this is always true, but that you have to handle
> those kinds of problems if you want to maintain a security branch for
> ports.

The point is, that it is irrelevant. Ports are independant of the base system. 
There is no need for a security branch of the ports tree. The ports that rely 
on specifics in the base system, handle it themselves via BROKEN, 
FreeBSD_version and friends. The ports tree is only tagged for a specific 
release, so that release cdroms can be made.

The only thing that makes sense is pre-compiled packages being updated for 
security branches of the base system - but, that is only worth-while if 
there's a large enough userbase that has an /etc/make.conf without NO_ flags. 
Since for example I have no need for Kerberos, I cannot use the FreeBSD 
provided packages for the ones that make sense, as they all link libgssapi 
(subversion pulls it in through www/neon, smbclient because of ports/90238 
and thus kde*).
-- 
Melvyn Sopacua
freebsd.stable at melvyn.homeunix.org

FreeBSD 6.0-STABLE
Qt: 3.3.5
KDE: 3.4.3