On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 19:15:14 +0100 (BST), you wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Nick Boyce wrote:
>=20
> > That seems to be it - I ran 'strip ftpd' and got a binary of exactly
> > the same size as the release version.
> >=20
> 	Glad that has been cleared up :)

Me too - thanks for the tip - another item for the howto.

[...]
> > I'd be happy to - I'm already building a document - where should I
> > send it for review ?   And what format - plain text, or HTML in the
> > style of a www.netbsd.org webpage ?
> >=20
> 	Ideally would be in nroff -mdoc :) Otherwise HTML would be
> 	fine, to www@netbsd.org

OK - shall do.

[...]
> > I wondered whether I should post this query to the tech-security =
list,
> > but I note that that doesn't seem to be an active list (last posting
> > in Dec 1999 !?), and I also guess the NetBSD project likes things the
> > way they are on this point.  What's the score here ?
> >=20
> 	Thats definitely worth asking on tech-security. I can assure you
> 	its still active - where did you see the old archive?

http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-security/ - see my other posting
this evening.

> 	A version increment is probably good enough - we don't tend to
> 	have so many patches for a given program that people should be
> 	picking and choosing, and if they do, they can pick their own
> 	version :)

OK - that makes sense.  No point in getting overcomplicated I guess.
And this only matters for patches to code which actually *has* a
version string to display - so I suppose it's an issue with that
particular patch, rather than a general patch policy issue.  Do you
think this should be brought to the attention of the ftpd patch
author, or should I still post to tech-security ?

Cheers,
Nick=20

--
Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of