Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 21:50:53 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Porter's Handbook category violations Message-ID: <20000603215053.B65314@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20000601232048.K32212@argon.gryphonsoft.com>; from andrews@technologist.com on Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 11:20:48PM -0400 References: <20000601232048.K32212@argon.gryphonsoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 11:20:48PM -0400, Will Andrews wrote: > Please, please: go read this document: > http://www.freebsd.org/porters-handbook/x2203.html > By this, the following net ports are in violation. However, I am unsure > which ones should be repo-copied to security/ and then have their "net" > portion removed, and which aren't. > > clog/Makefile:CATEGORIES= net security > ngrep/Makefile:CATEGORIES= net security > queso/Makefile:CATEGORIES= net security > relay/Makefile:CATEGORIES= net security > smbtcpdump/Makefile:CATEGORIES= net security > sniffit/Makefile:CATEGORIES= net security > tcpshow/Makefile:CATEGORIES= net security > telserv/Makefile:CATEGORIES= net security These are not in violation. They belongs in net plain and simple. There is no rule about listing security as a second category. In addition, IMHO the rule you are quoting here should be a guideline and not hard. I'm not sure everyone agrees fully with the statement you are quoting. > socks5/Makefile:CATEGORIES= net security I initially imported a socks4 into security and met with strong resistance on the category. I was told I was thinking shallowly by thinking Socks is only for security. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000603215053.B65314>