Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:50:42 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: pav@FreeBSD.org Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports CHANGES Message-ID: <20080312115042.qfuewj58g4w0ks0o@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <1205316986.51779.15.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> References: <200803112351.m2BNpONE051436@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080312111157.m261x9834owk80ow@webmail.leidinger.net> <1205316986.51779.15.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> (from Wed, 12 Mar 2008 =20 11:16:26 +0100): > Alexander Leidinger p=C3=AD=C5=A1e v st 12. 03. 2008 v 11:11 +0100: >> Quoting Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> (from Tue, 11 Mar 2008 >> 23:51:24 +0000 (UTC)): >> >> > pav 2008-03-11 23:51:24 UTC >> > >> > FreeBSD ports repository >> > >> > Modified files: >> > . CHANGES >> > Log: >> > - Document changes that have an impact on port writers >> >> Can we remove the USE_LDCONFIG part until the impact is analyzed (see >> my other mail, the reply to the bsd.port.mk commit)? > > I think the impact is analyzed by now (see my other mail). Let's say: It looks like it isn't harmful to use in easy situations =20 (port installs into LINUXBASE). I don't think we need to remove it after the first analysis, but we =20 may want to improve the implementation a little bit. Bye, Alexander. --=20 Is sex dirty? Only if it's done right. =09=09-- Woody Allen, "All You Ever Wanted To Know About Sex" http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080312115042.qfuewj58g4w0ks0o>