| 1 |
I dont agree with that. I think software that has a serious problem |
| 2 |
shouldn't be kept in portage masked or not. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ferry (M0rpheus) |
| 5 |
----- Original Message ----- |
| 6 |
From: <murphy@g.o> |
| 7 |
To: "Brandon Low" <lostlogic@g.o> |
| 8 |
Cc: "Donny Davies" <woodchip@g.o>; <gentoo-dev@g.o>; |
| 9 |
<gentoo-sparc@g.o> |
| 10 |
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 6:10 PM |
| 11 |
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Openssl 0.9.6c on sparc |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Hi, |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> > That deletion was due to the fact that there are known security holes |
| 17 |
> > in all versions of ssh prior to 3.4, I discussed with several older |
| 18 |
wiser |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> This is in SSH not SSL right? So can we change the ebuild to use openssl |
| 21 |
> 0.9.6c instead of 0.9.6d for Sparc? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> > devs before removing, if you need it back, use cvs to restore it, but |
| 24 |
> > keeping things with known security holes in the portage tree doesn't |
| 25 |
seem |
| 26 |
> > like good policy to me :-( Sorry for the inconvenience. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> In general, please don't delete any ebuilds unless you're sure they're not |
| 29 |
> being used by any platform. There is no need to physically delete an |
| 30 |
> ebuild to make people upgrade... Portage takes care of this already. Can |
| 31 |
> you just mask it out in the future? |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> thanks! |
| 34 |
> maarten |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> _______________________________________________ |
| 37 |
> gentoo-dev mailing list |
| 38 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o |
| 39 |
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev |
| 40 |
> |
Archives