Re: Retiring lpr and lpd

John Baldwin <[email protected]> writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[email protected]> writes:
> > Let me get this straight, you intend to create a port for software
> > which is still in base (and is expected to remain there for at least
> > another year) and is known to be severely buggy?
> Uh, this is our standard operating procedure for moving things out of base,
> and Cy has helped with many of these:

No, it is not our standard operating procedure to create ports that
duplicate software which is still in base and is not expected to be
removed for at least a year, nor is it our standard operating procedure
to knowingly add vulnerable software to the ports tree.

> I'm surprised you are so out of touch with how we handle this given
> you are proposing removing something?

This is beneath you, John.  Do you want to check who maintains, say,
security/opie?

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [email protected]