Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 23:59:19 +0200
From: olli hauer <ohauer@gmx.de>
To: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>
Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com>, ohauer@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: security/{nmap,zenmap} consolodation
Message-ID: <4E1237B7.8060408@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <CADLo8391Y4uG-xVA78rNZVLMoY7m1EoLWHNYJp7r0SvBxMp-Cw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110704144853.GA42273@DataIX.net> <CAF6rxgnAy%2By6pVtCg1bHK_FpV9YsXMhM3vXs2cRutFZ=OUU=nw@mail.gmail.com> <CADLo8391Y4uG-xVA78rNZVLMoY7m1EoLWHNYJp7r0SvBxMp-Cw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2011-07-04 23:20, Chris Rees wrote: > On 4 Jul 2011 21:47, "Eitan Adler" <lists@eitanadler.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Jason Hellenthal <jhell@dataix.net> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi ohauer@ >>> >>> I was curious if you would be intnerested in consolidating >>> security/zenmap into security/nmap with the options framework and >>> deprecating security/zenmap since it continually falls pretty far behind >>> newer versions of nmap in ports. >> >> Remember that with the OPTIONS framework only one package gets >> generated: whatever the default OPTION is. Not everyone wants the GUI >> and those who want the GUI may not want to build the port from source. >> > > Ok... so how about a master/slave port? > > That'd keep everything in sync. Hm, the only part both ports share is the sourefile ... We can try a master/slave, but I suspect it will end in many additional .ifdef/.ifndef in the nmap Makefile which makes maintenance harder. Additional both ports should keep a own pkg-plist (not a shared one).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E1237B7.8060408>