Subject: Re: binary packages with vulnerabilities removed from ftp - a bad idea?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/30/2005 16:17:58
In article <Pine.GSO.4.61.0501301714080.20255@rfhpc8317>,
Hubert Feyrer <email@example.com> writes:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
>> I believe this is possible, now that we have "@blddep". The easiest
>> way to use it, would be to remove any packages whose "@blddep" required
>> packages are missing.
> This doesn't make sense.
> If the @blddep is not there (maybe because it was rm'd for sekurity
> reasons) and an updated @dep is available, that can be used just fine.
How could you know that the ABI of the @blddep library didn't change?