From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 17 15:40:47 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAAB916A4CE for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 15:40:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pi.codefab.com (pi.codefab.com [199.103.21.227]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DBD743D62 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 15:40:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pi.codefab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5E2B5D08; Tue, 17 May 2005 11:40:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pi.codefab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pi.codefab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 93431-07; Tue, 17 May 2005 11:40:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (pool-68-161-53-96.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.161.53.96]) by pi.codefab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5B325CE7; Tue, 17 May 2005 11:40:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <428A1078.3060604@mac.com> Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 11:40:40 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050414 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam McLaurin References: <1116297146.4271.234280167@webmail.messagingengine.com> <4289E51A.2030501@mac.com> <1116342038.12591.234323975@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <1116342038.12591.234323975@webmail.messagingengine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at codefab.com cc: FreeBSD-Ports Subject: Re: net/libnet vs net/libnet-devel X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 15:40:48 -0000 Adam McLaurin wrote: > Hi Chuck, > > I suspect that many ports actually depend on net/libnet-devel (e.g., > net-mgmt/ettercap). Sure, newer software or updated versions use libnet-devel. > Is there any precedence to keep the arcane 1.0.x around (maybe > net/libnet-old). That way net/libnet could be 1.1.2.1, and > net/libnet-devel could be 1.1.3. Sounds fine to me, only who does the work? (If you're motivated, you can submit patches.... :-) -- -Chuck