Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 17:57:13 -0700 From: Lyndon Nerenberg VE7TCP <lyndon@orthanc.com> To: ashworth@cs.montana.edu Cc: www@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ncftp Binary Message-ID: <199607130057.RAA00820@multivac.orthanc.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 12 Jul 1996 17:48:55 PDT." <31E6F277.68C4@cs.montana.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 17:48:55 -0700 > From: Justin Ashworth <ashworth@cs.montana.edu> > To: www@freebsd.org > Subject: ncftp Binary > Hi, I think it would be a great idea to have a link to a ncftp binary > on the ports page for those who don't have it or don't want to download > and install the source. Here's why: I installed ncftp v. 2 and figured I > wouldn't need v. 1.xx, so I deleted it. Little did I know at the time, > port distributions depend on having that older version of ncftp so that > they can use the -N option...which 2.xx doesn't support. This is really (IMO) a bug in the ports tree. Having an item in ports install something in /usr/local/bin with the same name as one of the mainstream commands is just asking for trouble. I haven't looked at ncftp2, bug (sic) sort of figured that it would install as /usr/local/bin/ncftp2 if I ever said 'make install'. I'm curious as to how the "ports policy" addresses this. (No, my copy of the policy email isn't online on this machine. Sorry.) I suspect it's just an oversight. --lyndon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607130057.RAA00820>