-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi there,
Scott Long wrote:
> Brent Casavant wrote:
>
>> While I find ports to be the single most useful feature of the FreeBSD
>> experience, and can't thank contributors enough for the efforts, I on
>> the other hand find updating my installed por
My experience is similar to that of others, with one
variation - I've never been able to successfully install
from packages, and at best have found that half way
through, some port gets dragged in, and I've gradually
been sucked into replacing everything with ports.
( Which is fine, for the most
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Ion,
Ion-Mihai IOnut Tetcu wrote:
>>I have to agree on that statement. I would love to see branched ports.
>>This can get very important on servers, were you don't want to have
>>major upgrades, but only security updates.
>>I guess it's a question
Brent Casavant wrote:
On Sun, 21 May 2006, Colin Percival wrote:
So, in short, that's why *I* rarely update ports for security reasons.
There are steps that could be taken at the port maintenance level that
would work well for my particular case, however that's beyond the
scope of the survey.
On Mon, 22 May 2006 12:43:47 +0200
Marian Hettwer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Ion,
>
> Ion-Mihai IOnut Tetcu wrote:
>
> >>I have to agree on that statement. I would love to see branched ports.
> >>This can get very important on servers, we
On May 21, 2006, at 11:55 , Colin Percival wrote:
The Security Team has been concerned for some time by anecdotal
reports
concerning the number of FreeBSD systems which are not being promptly
updated or are running FreeBSD releases which have passed their End of
Life dates and are no longer s
On May 21, 2006, at 20:55, Colin Percival wrote:
If you administrate system(s) running FreeBSD (in the broad sense
of "are
responsible for keeping system(s) secure and up to date"), please
visit
http://people.freebsd.org/~cperciva/survey.html
and complete the survey below before May 31st,
On Sun, 21 May 2006, Colin Percival wrote:
> In order to better understand
> which FreeBSD versions are in use, how people are (or aren't) keeping
> them updated, and why it seems so many systems are not being updated, I
> have put together a short survey of 12 questions.
I applaud this survey, h
Brent Casavant wrote:
On Sun, 21 May 2006, Colin Percival wrote:
In order to better understand
which FreeBSD versions are in use, how people are (or aren't) keeping
them updated, and why it seems so many systems are not being updated, I
have put together a short survey of 12 questions.
I a
On Monday 22 May 2006 01:44, Scott Long wrote:
> Brent Casavant wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 May 2006, Colin Percival wrote:
> >>In order to better understand
> >>which FreeBSD versions are in use, how people are (or aren't)
> >> keeping them updated, and why it seems so many systems are not
> >> being up
Hi,
We don't use binary update as we use custom kernels.
We're using portaudit for security flaw with the installed ports but I don't
think there is any equivalent for the base and kernel? I'm subscribed and
I'm monitoring the FreeBSD Security Advisories mailing-list but there is (as
far as I kn
On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 23:44 -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> ports tree in the process, the end result is a bit more undefined. One
> thing that I wish for is that the ports tree would branch for releases,
> and that those branches would get security updates. I know that this
> would involve an expone
On Mon, 22 May 2006 11:40:16 +0200
Marian Hettwer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ports tree in the process, the end result is a bit more undefined. One
> > thing that I wish for is that the ports tree would branch for releases,
> > and that those branches would get security updates. I know that
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:06:54AM -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
>
> On May 21, 2006, at 11:55 , Colin Percival wrote:
>
> >The Security Team has been concerned for some time by anecdotal
> >reports
> >concerning the number of FreeBSD systems which are not being promptly
> >updated or
As an administrator, time is always an issue. FreeBSD has proven
itself time and again. Having said that, one "wish" would be to have
a default/built-in security update mechanism.
Since time is always and issue, if the system could by default
(without an admin having to write scri
On Mon, 2006-May-22 15:20:11 -, FreeBSD User wrote:
> Since time is always and issue, if the system could by default
> (without an admin having to write scripts and/or apps, or manually
> update) update itself for both system and installed ports/packages, it
> likely would reduce securi
On Tue, 23 May 2006 05:23:50 +1000
Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think it would substantially reduce the reliability and security.
As opposed to people not installing patches in the first place because it takes
to long?
-Allen
___
fre
As an administrator, time is always an issue. FreeBSD has proven
itself time and again. Having said that, one "wish" would be to
have
a default/built-in security update mechanism.
Since time is always and issue, if the system could by default
(without an admin having to write scri
Finally, it only takes one security failure in the update process for
someone undesirable to "own" all the FreeBSD machines that have been
left in this default mode. Despite the best efforts of FreeBSD
developers, FreeBSD will always contain bugs and some of them will
be security holes. Any au
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 04:39:38AM +0200 I heard the voice of
Clemens Renner, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> For example, when upgrading MySQL -- even with mysql_enable=YES in
> rc.conf, portupgrade will stop the sever but not restart it. Is
> there any plausible reason for this behaviour?
In the inte
Should something like automatic security updates not be a goal? If
done correctly, and on a per-stable/version basis, it is "possible" to
increase security exponentially. The responsible administrator will
naturally keep ontop of all changes and fixes. But just like in the
wintel a
21 matches
Mail list logo
