From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Apr 30 14: 8:58 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from windoze.tenebras.com (windoze.tenebras.com [216.15.43.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BA5937B6C8 for ; Sun, 30 Apr 2000 14:08:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kudzu@dnai.com) Received: from dnai.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by windoze.tenebras.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA19576; Sun, 30 Apr 2000 14:08:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kudzu@dnai.com) Message-ID: <390CA0C8.78564E7B@dnai.com> Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 14:08:24 -0700 From: Michael Sierchio Reply-To: kudzu@tenebras.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 4.0-STABLE i386) X-Accept-Language: fr, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brett Taylor Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Numerous broken ports References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Brett Taylor wrote: > Try re-cvsup'ing your ports tree. Done early and often. This of avail only if the port maintainer has done anything useful, like checking the port against a new -RELEASE or -STABLE distribution. I've not noticed as many broken ports as there are now. The major frustration is that it makes being a FreeBSD advocate that much harder. The ported apps may be "3rd party" but the ports themselves are not -- the patches and makefiles are part of the distribution. And the quality, as of 4.0-RELEASE / -STABLE is decidedly poor. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message