Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 29 May 2000 21:49:37 -0400
From:      Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>
To:        Matt Heckaman <matt@ARPA.MAIL.NET>, Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc:        Kenneth W Cochran <kwc@world.std.com>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: 4.0-stable, OpenSSH v1 & v2
Message-ID:  <v04210101b558ce007342@[128.113.24.47]>
In-Reply-To:  <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005292115580.56249-100000@epsilon.lucida.qc.ca>
References:  <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005292115580.56249-100000@epsilon.lucida.qc.ca>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 9:18 PM -0400 5/29/00, Matt Heckaman wrote:
> ...   It takes much longer for a new version to get merged into
>-STABLE than it does to get into the ports. I use BIND as an
>example here, but the same would apply for OpenSSL. What I would
>love to see is ports installing in the same location as the base
>program if on an OS with it in the base.

If this were to be done, you have to consider the case where the
person is actively tracking stable (the OS).  When they do new
buildworlds, you do not want that buildworld to overwrite the
version of the files which came from the port.

(buildworld does not automatically rebuild all your ports, true?)


---
Garance Alistair Drosehn           =   gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer          or  drosih@rpi.edu
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v04210101b558ce007342>