Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:00:36 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Bob <bob@tamara-b.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Forcing a portupgrade? Message-ID: <20070213215329.G2526@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <20070213174754.088e97b9@tania.servebbs.org> References: <20070213172123.620e32b3@tania.servebbs.org> <45D23AD3.4060506@makeworld.com> <BE10B4684C6890C58F1EA982@utd59514.utdallas.edu> <20070213174754.088e97b9@tania.servebbs.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Bob wrote: > On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:41:29 -0600 > Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu> wrote: > >> Yikes! That's a bit drastic. What's wrong with make >> DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES install? > > Where would I find the documentation on all the possible command-line > options to make? IE, where is DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES documented? man ports ISTR using it with portupgrade with the -M option. A probably-better way to fix the vulnerabilities of Mozilla is to switch to the newest version, which is now called Seamonkey. > I am sure I would have occasion to use others if I knew what and where > they were. Also in the ports man page. Other targets also avoid brute-force removal of files, like rmconfig. -Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070213215329.G2526>