Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:42:27 -0700 From: Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> To: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: split the quagga ports to remove unstable patches from quagga port Message-ID: <2E8810E6-1663-4996-A3D4-79F91378F1EE@netconsonance.com> In-Reply-To: <4863C23B.3020802@FreeBSD.org> References: <83EB55D5-11A0-44C9-A469-A5C5BD6D972C@netconsonance.com> <20080626155616.GI12581@atarininja.org> <4863C23B.3020802@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 26, 2008, at 9:22 AM, Sergey Matveychuk wrote: > I agree. Two ports are overkill for only TCPMD5 option. And it > should not be a show stopper for the port update. Should not be, but is. If you can convince Boris to update the port without having a working MD5 patch then my reasoning becomes invalid. But at the moment the port is held hostage by the MD5 patches. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2E8810E6-1663-4996-A3D4-79F91378F1EE>