Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 21:30:01 GMT From: Paul Beard <paulbeard@gmail.com> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/177416: mail/postgrey has surfaced a bug in perl's taint checking Message-ID: <201303302130.r2ULU10t023504@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/177416; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Paul Beard <paulbeard@gmail.com> To: Darren Pilgrim <ports.maintainer@evilphi.com> Cc: "bug-followup@FreeBSD.org" <bug-followup@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: ports/177416: mail/postgrey has surfaced a bug in perl's taint checking Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 14:26:47 -0700 On Mar 30, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Darren Pilgrim = <ports.maintainer@evilphi.com> wrote: > Because you're going at it backwards.=20 It only looks that way. If I want to know what port requires this one, I = don't want to install other ports on a fishing expedition to find it. = Computers are really good at finding things, keeping lists, searching = and sorting. It seems like I should be able to search for ports that = require a specific one.=20 So what I am looking for is leaf ports (top-level ports makes more sense = but isn't used as an option). To me, that's backwards.=20 Anyway: portmaster -l returns this:=20 =3D=3D=3D>>> 293 leaf ports Hmm, that's a lot. After I winnow them down to the ones I actually use, = I could simply run make pretty-print-build-depends-list against each = one, sort the results to see what perl modules, if any surface, and test = postgrey against them.=20 It's too nice a day to faff about with this but I'll let you know if = anything turns up.=20 -- Paul Beard Are you trying to win an argument or solve a problem?=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201303302130.r2ULU10t023504>