From nobody Sat Mar 16 13:16:21 2024 X-Original-To: ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4TxhTk3t0Rz5Dp90 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:16:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from mail.rdtc.ru (ns3.rdtc.ru [62.231.190.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TxhTk14Fjz3wxL for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:16:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: by mail.rdtc.ru (RDTC Post Office Server, from userid 1000) id 185FB1CF08; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:16:32 +0700 (+07) Received: from eg.sd.rdtc.ru (eg.sd.rdtc.ru [62.231.161.221]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: egrosbein@rdtc.ru) by mail.rdtc.ru (RDTC Post Office Server) with ESMTPSA id 69DB71CC6E; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:16:30 +0700 (+07) X-Envelope-From: eugen@grosbein.net X-Envelope-To: flo@FreeBSD.org Received: from [10.58.0.10] (dadvw [10.58.0.10]) by eg.sd.rdtc.ru (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 42GDGRPN014109 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:16:27 +0700 (+07) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Subject: Re: Proposed ports deprecation and removal policy To: Daniel Engberg References: <435edf7c-a956-4317-b327-3372de70dbef@FreeBSD.org> <1c5b7818-842f-f7b8-9d4e-5bf681cad20e@grosbein.net> <64c7435c-2d69-1f62-ba7c-30812860a457@grosbein.net> <9646fd5d0666c8e57795ea1b370b6af1@mail.infomaniak.com> <7a7501f71442d27f6d8c1c0a16f247c1@mail.infomaniak.com> <8212dd5a-bcc2-e214-0373-6dbfddef65c2@grosbein.net> <49c4e69ffb5cec7b71d4b8e01f628ae7@mail.infomaniak.com> Cc: Florian Smeets , ports@freebsd.org From: Eugene Grosbein Message-ID: <46bc57fc-90af-004e-b722-114869097408@grosbein.net> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:16:21 +0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <49c4e69ffb5cec7b71d4b8e01f628ae7@mail.infomaniak.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOCAL_FROM, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_PASS,T_DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_Q,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record * -2.3 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.0 T_DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_Q Date: is 4 days to 4 months after Received: * date * -0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available. * 2.6 LOCAL_FROM From my domains * -1.7 NICE_REPLY_A Looks like a legit reply (A) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on eg.sd.rdtc.ru X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:29072, ipnet:62.231.184.0/21, country:RU] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4TxhTk14Fjz3wxL 16.03.2024 17:03, Daniel Engberg wrote: > A key difference is though that browsers such as Firefox or Chromium are maintained upstream including reporting etc. It does not stop browsers from being vulnerable all the time. All times. So, no difference in practical point of view. In theory, there is difference. Not in practice. Eugen