Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:49:42 +0100 From: Mij <mij@bitchx.it> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Cheng-Lung Sung <clsung@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/sshguard Makefile Message-ID: <44226B29-C2D1-4CF9-A0F9-FC661D5691C5@bitchx.it> In-Reply-To: <20070302164917.GA28444@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <200703011006.l21A6EKZ036332@repoman.freebsd.org> <20070302164917.GA28444@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/mar/07, at 17:49, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 10:06:14AM +0000, Cheng-Lung Sung wrote: >> clsung 2007-03-01 10:06:14 UTC >> >> FreeBSD ports repository >> >> Modified files: >> security/sshguard Makefile >> Log: >> - respect maintainer's insist on interactive part, >> even IS_INTERACTIVE is discouraged not glad to see such comment > This is disappointing. Can the maintainer explain why? the app requires the user to choose what firewall to support for building: IPFW or PF. They are in XOR and there is no reasonable default in this. Cheng-Lung chose PF default and removed is_interactive. A feedback request would have avoided this qui pro quo. >> - PORTREVISION is thus bumped. >> >> Approved by: maintainer (implicit) > >> | +.if ! ( (defined(WITH_PF) && !defined(WITH_IPFW)) || !defined >> (WITH_PF)) >> | +# some error occurred. Configure will handle this. >> | +.endif > > And what is this? :) this used to be ".error blah" for checking the options' XOR-ness, then removed because options are also set when deinstalling/cleaning etc. Definitely useless, replacing with a comment about the problem appears the best to do. Actually I dunno why this made its way in the submission :) bye
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44226B29-C2D1-4CF9-A0F9-FC661D5691C5>