Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 08:46:24 -0700 From: fatty.merchandise677@aceecat.org To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: wireguard confusion Message-ID: <LNBY3x9Zd3CziuJD@aceecat.org> In-Reply-To: <4e50caf7-dd15-4c8c-9a69-b2f7dbee8b46@FreeBSD.org> References: <uhVHXogbBovqSApS@aceecat.org> <29044f1d-f835-459d-8e1c-17832580b5d9@FreeBSD.org> <20241008024304.5ff138a9@Hydrogen> <4e50caf7-dd15-4c8c-9a69-b2f7dbee8b46@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 08:45:33PM GMT, Kyle Evans wrote: > > Little nitpick at this, can't you exclude wg from the port then? > At this point we probably could- all supported versions should have > it- but I have no opinion. CC decke@ Note that the rc bit would have to be modified in that case, as it hardcodes the pathname to /usr/local/bin/wg. If anything, I'd do something to the base copy -- if not delete it, maybe rename it, how about wgtool ? -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?LNBY3x9Zd3CziuJD>