Home page logo
/

nmap-dev logo Nmap Development mailing list archives

Re: ambiguity about nmap results
From: "DePriest, Jason R." <jrdepriest () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 21:17:54 +0100

Debian is worse, much worse.  Both the test and unstable branches have
4.53-3 as the latest.

Stable is listed as 4.11-1!  According to the nmap changelog, that was
"stable" on 2006/06/23, coming close to two years ago.  Nmap is so
much better than it was back then!

Ugh.  I just roll my own.

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Brandon Enright <> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 30 May 2008 22:22:46 +0300
"sara fink" <sara.fink () gmail com> wrote:

on my laptop I have nmap version 4.60 from gentoo portage.
4.62 appears as non stable in portage.


The Gentoo arch/~arch model (as well as most other distributions notion
of stable/unstable) typically doesn't match the Nmap development cycle.

For Nmap it is generally the case that x.z is /more/ stable and better
tested than x.y when z > y.

At least for nmap, you probably should add

# Networking (or ~x86, etc)
net-analyzer/nmap ~amd64

to /etc/portage/package.keywords

I love Gentoo but don't expect the devs and package maintainers to make
the best decisions for your particular usage case.

Brandon

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkhAXUgACgkQqaGPzAsl94LR8ACeOTZjoZZT2YJHN2uFfJCWQipz
um0AoIpj0tyw04uMtA5rFDFTqOBROzlV
=aZs7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://SecLists.Org


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault