Re: RE: Is FreeBSD's tar susceptible to this?
From: Brett Glass (brett@lariat.org)
Date: 10/01/02
- Next message: Matt Piechota: "Re: Is FreeBSD's tar susceptible to this?"
- Previous message: Larry Sica: "Re: Is FreeBSD's tar susceptible to this?"
- Maybe in reply to: Brett Glass: "Is FreeBSD's tar susceptible to this?"
- Next in thread: f.johan.beisser: "Re: RE: Is FreeBSD's tar susceptible to this?"
- Reply: f.johan.beisser: "Re: RE: Is FreeBSD's tar susceptible to this?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 13:35:27 -0600 To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
At 01:28 PM 10/1/2002, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> In our case, we have a simple recourse for 'tar' if the the gnu/tar
> people are unable to stabilize their final product. We find a fairly
> stable version and we fork it in our tree.
I agree. And while folks are correct that licensing is not the only issue
here, why not take the opportunity to adopt something BSD-licensed instead?
At the same time, it would be possible to integrate bzip instead of invoking
it as a separate process. This would make it more efficient when we go to
bzip for ports and packages.
--Brett
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
- Next message: Matt Piechota: "Re: Is FreeBSD's tar susceptible to this?"
- Previous message: Larry Sica: "Re: Is FreeBSD's tar susceptible to this?"
- Maybe in reply to: Brett Glass: "Is FreeBSD's tar susceptible to this?"
- Next in thread: f.johan.beisser: "Re: RE: Is FreeBSD's tar susceptible to this?"
- Reply: f.johan.beisser: "Re: RE: Is FreeBSD's tar susceptible to this?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]