Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 09:25:01 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 188437] New port: security/softether Message-ID: <bug-188437-13-GvwcmxTRVk@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-188437-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-188437-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188437 John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Patch Ready |Open --- Comment #11 from John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to T. S. from comment #10) > Well - I'm aware it's not really nice to put everything into one directory, > though the situation is that the binaries write data files into the same > directory where the binaries are put - it's coded this way. > /home/softether isn't the place, in my opinion, where server software should > be put, /var/softether (or some kind of sub-directory) too. Maybe this hack would be alright: 1) install softether not in /usr/local/bin and not executable 2) Make an executable script that copies (if it doesn't exist) softether to $HOME directory, make it executable, and run it there. your script just has to known where to only execute or copy then execute first. At least this would be legal. > For now - please put this on hold - will see if the authors of the software > can modify it in some way that data files, dynamic configuration etc. are > placed where they should belong. This sounds like a good idea. I don't know any package system that would tolerate this, so it's surprising that it's set up this way. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-188437-13-GvwcmxTRVk>