FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-03:08.realpath

[Lowell Gilbert]

"Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar at freebsd.org> writes:

> Thank you for the suggestion.  Would you care to post _exactly_ what
> wording you think would be better?  I cannot think of a way to do so
> without being redundant or misleading.  I have no desire to add a
> ``Not affected:'' line.  Especially at times when we have two -STABLE
> branches (as we will soon for 4.x and 5.x), it will be common that
> there is a bug in one release but not another higher-numbered one.

I suppose you could include the file versions for which the bug no
longer affected -STABLE.  It's not always easy to determine, but it
certainly was in this case.

It only took me 5 minutes to work it out on my own, so I'm not
convinced of the value, but I suppose it meets what some others were
asking for, and I don't *think* it makes the advisory more confusing.