From owner-freebsd-current Tue May 9 10:22:47 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from turtle.looksharp.net (cc360882-a.strhg1.mi.home.com [24.2.221.22]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8692B37B6A4 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 10:22:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bsdx@looksharp.net) Received: from localhost (bsdx@localhost) by turtle.looksharp.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26947 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 13:23:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from bsdx@looksharp.net) Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 13:23:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Adam To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: a better idea for package dependencies In-Reply-To: <20000509075209.D6350@dragon.nuxi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 9 May 2000, David O'Brien wrote: >On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 06:30:17PM -0400, Kenneth Wayne Culver wrote: >> Actually, it has to do with the pkg_ commands, which I believe are built >> when you make world... > >yes. > >> and aren't part of the ports, > >And are only used for Ports. Thus their behavior defines the behavior of >the Ports Collection. Thus it is a Ports issue. IF the pkg_* utils were >ports, how would you install them?? > >-- David (obrien@NUXI.com) Am I missing something? I thought ports only need some .mk files and make? (Along with tools to get those there, including the port itself, at most fetch or ftp, and tar?) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message