On 9/12/2011, at 7:27 PM, Tekk wrote: > iirc the binary packages are audited, ports are not >
Guys, they put so much effort into the docs & FAQ - read them. The recommendation is to use the binary packages unless you know you are doing. http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Intro The packages and ports collection does NOT go through the same thorough security audit that is performed on the OpenBSD base system. Although we strive to keep the quality of the packages collection high, we just do not have enough human resources to ensure the same level of robustness and security. > On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Neoklis Kyriazis wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Thomas Adam <tho...@xteddy.org> >> To: Neoklis >> Kyriazis <n5b...@yahoo.com> >> Cc: OpenBSD <misc@openbsd.org> >> Sent: Thursday, >> December 8, 2011 6:41 PM >> Subject: Re: Failed to setup fvwm for antialiased Xft >> fonts >> >>> No -- OpenBSD's version of FVWM as included in base is ancient. Get >>> the one from ports which will have XFT support. >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for the tip. I >> have tried to install fvwm2 from the ports tree, >> but I saw a lot of gcc >> warnings during compilation, some of them >> possibly serious. >> >> >> This leads me to >> a more general question about using third party >> software. Is the source code >> of the binary application packages in >> the mirrors scrutinized, to fix the >> source of such warnings?And I >> suppose applications installed from the ports >> system are "as is", >> since the source is downloaded from upstream? >> >> My thanks >> in advance. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> Neoklis - Ham Radio Call 5B4AZ >> QTH Locator KM64KR >> Website: http://www.qsl.net/5b4az/
