sysutils/cfs

[Matthias Andree]

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.

> 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).

> I want machines, tools, to do as *I* say not the other way round, whether
> it's good for me or not. If I wanted nannying and interference, I'd install
> Ubuntu.

No, you'd use a managed installation.  Nobody stands there pointing a
gun at your head and forces you to uninstall a port that got removed
from the ports/ tree.  If people could recognize that, it might help get
the derailed discussion back on the right track.