Is there logic in the makefiles to constrain builds based on desired security levels? Perhaps some sort of negative incentive whereby the default security level excludes most ports unless you set a "DESIRED_PORT_SEC_LEVEL" variable to a less constrained number could be implemented. This would require everyone installing the ports tree afresh to at least pay attention to the issue. (Though arguably they wouldn't be bothering to use OpenBSD unless they cared... you'd think.) cg. -----Original Message----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Marc Espie Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 5:04 PM To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Miscellaneous things. On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 02:37:39AM +0300, Toomas Kiisk wrote: > N months ago somebody proposed adding X/Y/pkg/SECURITY file to > ports/ tree. This was an excellent idea. If porter has made 0 > security checks, then at least package should be marked as such. That was me. There are 12 SECURITY files in the ports tree so far, out of 568 ports. The rest has not been audited, or no one bothered to mention it. -- Marc Espie |anime, sf, juggling, unicycle, acrobatics, comics... |AmigaOS, OpenBSD, C++, perl, Icon, PostScript... | `real programmers don't die, they just get out of beta'