From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Aug  9 09:18:00 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7D79616A4CE; Mon,  9 Aug 2004 09:18:00 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fillmore.dyndns.org (port-212-202-50-15.dynamic.qsc.de
	[212.202.50.15])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 3F0A843D39; Mon,  9 Aug 2004 09:18:00 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com)
Received: from dhcp-14.local ([172.16.0.14] helo=dhcp-11.local)
	by fillmore.dyndns.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168)
	(Exim 4.41 (FreeBSD))
	id 1Bu6I0-0006X7-A9; Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:17:59 +0200
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 11:19:29 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482)
To: obrien@freebsd.org
From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040809090740.GB31766@dragon.nuxi.com>
Message-Id: <37C15666-E9E5-11D8-9C56-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9
cc: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org>
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: upgrade of file(1) to 4.10 (including FreeBSD elf(5) fixes)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 09:18:00 -0000

David O'Brien wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 08:31:15PM +0200, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
>> As usual, file(1) has to follow. Anyway, since it works for now, and
>> currently there is no reason to break it, why is it bad? I actually 
>> like
>> that feature, and it is useful for debugging ports that should have 
>> been
>> recompiled after a system upgrade.
>
> Sounds like you're trying to work around bugs in the Ports Collection,
> please go fix those bugs and use the proper tool for the job.

Could you please elaborate which bugs you are referring to? The current 
file(1) works fine for me in this aspect, so what are better tools for 
the job?

-Oliver