Stuart Henderson wrote:
There isn't a normal procedure for 4.2 -stable ports/packages, these don't exist at the moment
We all know, and it would be good to discuss this in a very civilised manner; avoiding pointing of fingers.
But this situation also reduces the tracking of OpenBSD, and its attraction. I adore the developers for the huge advances in hardware compatibility, keeping the system with a beautiful simplicity, and giving me as system administrator the coziest feeling of security. This is why I have been tracking it, from 3.3 to 4.2 (yesterday finished upgrading the last box to 4.2). Until recently, I felt that the 'most relevant' ports and packages (whatever that is) were reasonably updated, at least as far as security is concerned. Now, with 4.2, most of the (again, relevant) ports and packages are already close to half a year of age. I will only have another window in time for 4.2->4-3->4.4 in a year from now. The cozy feeling will alas be somewhat gone, running mid-2007 software throughout 2008, without reasonable backports of security-challenged applications. I have no solution for this within OpenBSD. If a 'distribution' where hacking happens only at the bleeding edge is viable, I don't know. It surely is fun, though.
Uwe
