Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 16:59:41 -0600 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Ilya Bakulin <webmaster@kibab.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unbound-control in FreeBSD-CURRENT and stable/10 Message-ID: <20131202225941.GF96826@over-yonder.net> In-Reply-To: <20131202130349.GJ48919@glebius.int.ru> References: <20131129142143.GA29437@olymp.kibab.com> <20131129142729.GA29580@olymp.kibab.com> <20131130082939.GJ90895@FreeBSD.org> <d527526b4ab25add17ad2eb87428dbcb@mail.bakulin.de> <20131202130349.GJ48919@glebius.int.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 05:03:49PM +0400 I heard the voice of Gleb Smirnoff, and lo! it spake thus: > > My vote is "yes", but we need a much wider discussion for such a > change. I've had this in my rc files for a very long time. But note that it DOES cause occasional problems with port builds, when it tries using some port-installed tool rather than the base one (texinfo is a common offender), and so builds blow up. And they usually stay broken long enough that I take it as evidence that not many people do such path rearrangement :| -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131202225941.GF96826>