From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 4 16:30:14 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 551C21065670 for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 16:30:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4545F8FC08 for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 16:30:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p34GUElo023603 for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 16:30:14 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p34GUEJ4023602; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 16:30:14 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 16:30:14 GMT Message-Id: <201104041630.p34GUEJ4023602@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Paul Schmehl Cc: Subject: Re: ports/156172: security/barnyard2 does not need security/snort to run X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Paul Schmehl List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 16:30:14 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/156172; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Paul Schmehl To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Cc: Subject: Re: ports/156172: security/barnyard2 does not need security/snort to run Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 11:27:40 -0500 --On April 4, 2011 8:50:16 AM -0500 Edwin Groothuis wrote: > Maintainer of security/barnyard2, > > Please note that PR ports/156172 has just been submitted. > > If it contains a patch for an upgrade, an enhancement or a bug fix > you agree on, reply to this email stating that you approve the patch > and a committer will take care of it. > > The full text of the PR can be found at: > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/156172 Sheesh. Sound the idiot alarm. The patch I sent doesn't accomplish what the OP requested at all. His patch works fine by removing the RUN_DEPENDS for snort. I need to decide if I want to add snort to the OPTIONS (as well as suricata), so put this on hold while I think this through more carefully. -- Paul Schmehl (pauls@utdallas.edu) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/