Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 15:11:02 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Is openssl properly integrated to the FreeBSD? Message-ID: <20010304151101.B37701@mollari.cthul.hu> In-Reply-To: <E14Zf48-000HgW-00@rip.psg.com>; from randy@psg.com on Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 12:25:16PM -0800 References: <Pine.OSF.4.21.0009271503020.32142-100000@hera.ik.bme.hu> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009271301380.81104-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> <E14Zf48-000HgW-00@rip.psg.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--BwCQnh7xodEAoBMC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 12:25:16PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: > two questions >=20 > o if i want to install the binaries in as clean a fashion as possible, > what's the hack? I don't understand this question - the binaries are installed by the usual make install process. > o might the decision on whether to install (destructive docs | binaries) > be better made in make.conf? I'm MFCing an install knob today which will build and install the manpages if you want them, but they still clobber a lot of system manpages which we can't fix without a lot of surgery, so it's still not done by default. Kris --BwCQnh7xodEAoBMC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6osuFWry0BWjoQKURAi69AKCTTy62/dElVBftpBQ7F4ZuYI3MagCfeXIw XQGbn6ReGjWJBObfACdor40= =soV4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --BwCQnh7xodEAoBMC-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010304151101.B37701>