From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 19 13:45:04 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BD81106564A; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:45:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stephen@missouri.edu) Received: from wilberforce.math.missouri.edu (wilberforce.math.missouri.edu [128.206.184.213]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 483918FC0C; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:45:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (wilberforce.math.missouri.edu [128.206.184.213]) by wilberforce.math.missouri.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6JDj0De039273; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:45:00 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from stephen@missouri.edu) Message-ID: <4E258A5C.5040903@missouri.edu> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:45:00 -0500 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Barton References: <201107190333.p6J3XQVD050847@repoman.freebsd.org> <4E2542BA.5040203@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4E2542BA.5040203@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "vanhu@netasq.com" , Stephen Montgomery-Smith , "cvs-all@FreeBSD.org" , John Hein , "maho@FreeBSD.org" , "cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org" , "ports-committers@FreeBSD.org" Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/ipsec-tools Makefile ports/security/ipsec-tools/files racoon.sh.in X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: **OBSOLETE** CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:45:04 -0000 On 07/19/2011 03:39 AM, Doug Barton wrote: > This change is an improvement, but it doesn't go far enough in a couple > of directions. The 2 most important being that faststart is not the only > possible prefix there, and we don't want that block to run > unconditionally in any case. > > I've attached the full script I'm suggesting because the diff doesn't > make much sense. One thing I didn't change because I'm not sure if it > needs to be run early is changing the current require/before to just > REQUIRE: LOGIN, which is what we prefer ports scripts to do. However if > there is a good reason for this one to run earlier, that's fine. > > If you have any questions, let me know. > > > Doug > I'll wait for confirmation from the port maintainer, but it would be good to get John Hein's opinion as well. Thanks, Stephen