From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 6 07:45:08 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54E50A85 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 07:45:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C724275 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 07:45:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sA67j8HY007748 for ; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 07:45:08 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 193134] [NEW PORT] net-mgmt/seafile: Framework for writing networked applications Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 07:45:08 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports Tree X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: patch X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: marino@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 07:45:08 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193134 --- Comment #34 from John Marino --- (In reply to Jingfeng Yan from comment #32) > - using for loop to tight the codes I don't see an advantage to making a list and using it once with a loop versus the way I suggested, so I'm going to got with the (cd .... && ln && ln) approach. I think it's clearer (more quickly) and shorter so... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.