Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth?

Steven Hartland killing at multiplay.co.uk
Mon Dec 4 20:31:59 UTC 2017


On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 at 03:02, Michelle Sullivan <michelle at sorbs.net> wrote:

>
> You mean if you're not into security or part of a security company stay
> on quarterly, but if you need to keep patched up because you are in the
> top 100 of most attacked sites/companies in the world, deploy a team of
> people to patch security issues and run your own ports tree because
> breakage on HEAD is often and when you need it the least and quarterly
> doesn't guarantee it'll even work/compile and nearly never gets security
> patches.
>
>
> Sorry, but that's the truth of it and the reason I no longer use FreeBSD
> or the Ports tree, instead using a derivative of each which is a lot
> more stable and patched against security issues within hours of them
> being identified.


This has not been our experience here, we’ve run our own ports tree from
HEAD for many years and while we’ve had some internal patches that need
fixing on update, thats always been down to us not keeping them up to date
with changes.

Sure we could have got lucky but it does mean that such a blanket statement
is not valid for everyone’s use case.

I’m not sure if it’s possible but if you’re already allocating resources to
help handle security patches could that not be something that the wider
user base could benefit from via helping the secteam, if its turnaround
time on security patches you’re highlighting as an issue here?


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list