ruby 2.4.7,1 considered vulnerable?

Trond Endrestøl trond.endrestol at
Sat Aug 31 08:14:41 UTC 2019

On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 17:43+1000, MJ wrote:

> Given the liberal use of portepoch in the package versions I expect 
> the maintainer has got confused. Indeed perhaps it's the portepoch 
> that's causing the issue. Perhaps contact the maintainer to get it 
> worked through?

I just created PR 240227:


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list