From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Nov 12 14:43:36 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 492C716A417
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:43:36 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from hans@lambermont.dyndns.org)
Received: from lambermont.dyndns.org (lambermont.dyndns.org [82.95.221.39])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0971E13C49D
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:43:35 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from hans@lambermont.dyndns.org)
Received: by lambermont.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id 0B5C522DDF0; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:19:18 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:19:18 +0100
To: ports@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20071112141917.GB82556@leia.lambermont.dyndns.org>
References: <20071111155343.GC1567@ted.stsp.lan>
	<alpine.BSF.0.99999.0711111451130.20729@ync.qbhto.arg>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.0.99999.0711111451130.20729@ync.qbhto.arg>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
From: hans@lambermont.dyndns.org (Hans Lambermont)
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [PATCH] portmaster with SU_CMD
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:43:36 -0000

Doug Barton wrote:

> This is very interesting stuff, but I don't see how it would be useful to 
> a very wide audience. My feeling is that the vast majority of our users 
> build and/or install ports as root, and I don't see any good reason for 
> that not to be the default practice.
> 
> I'll review your patch more thoroughly when time allows (since we are in a 
> freeze I can't add new features right now anyway) but I'm not inclined to 
> add this unless there is a fairly substantial clamor for it.

I'd use it if it was available. (I even think this should be default
behaviour, but that's for another thread/bikeshed).

regards,
   Hans Lambermont