Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 11:49:49 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger <pi@FreeBSD.org> To: olli hauer <ohauer@gmx.de> Cc: Frederic Culot <culot@FreeBSD.org>, skv@FreeBSD.org, apache@freebsd.org, Kurt Jaeger <pi@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: www/p5-libapreq2: libtool fix, strip libs, pkg-plist followup, p5-fix Message-ID: <20140610094949.GY3484@f10.opsec.eu> In-Reply-To: <53945E98.3080408@gmx.de> References: <20140608081334.GK1427@f10.opsec.eu> <20140608083407.GL1427@f10.opsec.eu> <20140608083636.GM1427@f10.opsec.eu> <20140608085842.GO1427@f10.opsec.eu> <53945E98.3080408@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! Back to my proposed change for www/libapreq2 and this question: > > Would it be more useful to make the slave port (p5-libapreq2) > > a seperate port depending on the other ? Looking at the pkg-plist and Makefile mess: Is it really useful to have this master/slave port or should I split and depend on libapreq2 ? -- pi@FreeBSD.org +49 171 3101372 6 years to go !
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140610094949.GY3484>