--WChQLJJJfbwij+9x
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 08:02:34AM +1000, Simon Burge wrote:
> Elad Efrat wrote:
>=20
> > also, where is the consensus of the class of programs to protect with
> > USE_FORT taken from? and what's the reason for it?
>=20
> While talking about this change, it is too late to change the option
> name to "USE_FORTIFY"?  I can't see any reason for using the abbreviated
> "FORT" in the name.

seconded.

--
Dan.
--WChQLJJJfbwij+9x
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFGX0aLEAVxvV4N66cRAsWKAKD60EnImP/Qx60iQAXrJiUeC8/HfACaAyIH
OPDpls7ePOG9W+Zh+7bAbrU=
=sDWc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--WChQLJJJfbwij+9x--