From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 12 22:22:21 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583BA16A4CE; Sun, 12 Dec 2004 22:22:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from skynet.stack.nl (skynet.stack.nl [131.155.140.225]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 925F443D54; Sun, 12 Dec 2004 22:22:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from johans@mailhost.gletsjer.net) Received: by skynet.stack.nl (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 7B0913F29; Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:22:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from mailhost.gletsjer.net (tunnel03.ipv6.stack.nl [IPv6:2001:610:1108:5001::3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by skynet.stack.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 151313F16; Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:22:37 +0100 (CET) Received: by mailhost.gletsjer.net (Postfix, from userid 801) id B8F5E433C; Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:22:17 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:22:17 +0100 From: Johan van Selst To: Sergey Matveychuk Message-ID: <20041212222217.GA63573@taz.gletsjer.net> References: <200412122141.iBCLfOUS043290@freefall.freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200412122141.iBCLfOUS043290@freefall.freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on skynet.stack.nl X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 cc: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/74995: Update port: dns/dnssecwalker upgrade to 3.5 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 22:22:21 -0000 Sergey Matveychuk wrote: > Committed, thanks! > You're a maintainer now. Thanks. Argh! Only now I realize that dns/walker refers to exactly the same software (version 3.2). Having two ports for the same thing is obviously nonsense, but I'm not sure how to proceed now. Since the executable is called 'walker', that is probably the best name for the port as well (although less obvious for it's purpose). Either port should be killed and the new version be 3.5. Should I open a new PR for this? Johan