Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 10:47:53 -0500 From: Kyle Evans <kevans@FreeBSD.org> To: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: wireguard confusion Message-ID: <e46b67b0-a00a-4df1-8a0d-d62d05c08c9b@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <LNBY3x9Zd3CziuJD@aceecat.org> References: <uhVHXogbBovqSApS@aceecat.org> <29044f1d-f835-459d-8e1c-17832580b5d9@FreeBSD.org> <20241008024304.5ff138a9@Hydrogen> <4e50caf7-dd15-4c8c-9a69-b2f7dbee8b46@FreeBSD.org> <LNBY3x9Zd3CziuJD@aceecat.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/8/24 10:46, fatty.merchandise677@aceecat.org wrote: > 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. > That can be fixed. > If anything, I'd do something to the base copy -- if not delete it, > maybe rename it, how about wgtool ? > I can't think of a good reason to do this, no. You should be using the version in base, not the version in ports. Thanks, Kyle Evans
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e46b67b0-a00a-4df1-8a0d-d62d05c08c9b>