From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 27 16:49:59 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F181065671 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:49:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jrhett@netconsonance.com) Received: from mail.netconsonance.com (mail.netconsonance.com [198.207.204.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B57DB8FC1A for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:49:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jrhett@netconsonance.com) Received: from [10.66.240.106] (public-wireless.sv.svcolo.com [64.13.135.30]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netconsonance.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m5RGnulF023552; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:49:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jrhett@netconsonance.com) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at netconsonance.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.909 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.909 tagged_above=-999 required=3.5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.44, AWL=0.531] Message-Id: From: Jo Rhett To: Boris Samorodov In-Reply-To: <16B8C91A-13DF-4BFE-B85A-AE193EF12713@netconsonance.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:49:51 -0700 References: <74239915@ipt.ru> <6FD1D7CD-5AD8-45F7-BEDF-8D6CBAEE1D8D@netconsonance.com> <63496920@ipt.ru> <4227E14E-AF2F-47B6-9BA5-D96BE40B05CE@netconsonance.com> <27802537@ipt.ru> <16B8C91A-13DF-4BFE-B85A-AE193EF12713@netconsonance.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924) Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cfengine port update? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:49:59 -0000 So I pulled a fresh copy of the portsnap for cfengine port -- we are *STILL* on 2.2.3? How many years does it take to get a port updated? > On May 9, 2008, at 12:19 AM, Boris Samorodov wrote: >>> If there's something wrong >>> with them, someone needs to specify what is wrong. >> >> Seems that you shouldn't delete man pages from the Makefile. > > They were removed from the distribution, therefore they weren't > available to install. And I just went through the SVN, and confirmed that the current makefile for the product installs only a single man page. Which is exactly what the port patches I sent you reflect. If you are saying that you'd like me to override the package maintainer and force the installation of man pages which are not installed by default, then you need to state that clearly. (although I disagree in principle with changing the product as delivered by the maintainer without putting those changes into OPTIONS) -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness