Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:49:37 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Matt Heckaman <matt@ARPA.MAIL.NET>, Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Kenneth W Cochran <kwc@world.std.com>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 4.0-stable, OpenSSH v1 & v2 Message-ID: <v04210101b558ce007342@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005292115580.56249-100000@epsilon.lucida.qc.ca> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005292115580.56249-100000@epsilon.lucida.qc.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 9:18 PM -0400 5/29/00, Matt Heckaman wrote: > ... It takes much longer for a new version to get merged into >-STABLE than it does to get into the ports. I use BIND as an >example here, but the same would apply for OpenSSL. What I would >love to see is ports installing in the same location as the base >program if on an OS with it in the base. If this were to be done, you have to consider the case where the person is actively tracking stable (the OS). When they do new buildworlds, you do not want that buildworld to overwrite the version of the files which came from the port. (buildworld does not automatically rebuild all your ports, true?) --- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or drosih@rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v04210101b558ce007342>