From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Mar 12 14:09:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA14622 for questions-outgoing; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 14:09:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from gdi.uoregon.edu (gdi.uoregon.edu [128.223.170.30]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA14610 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 14:09:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (dwhite@localhost) by gdi.uoregon.edu (8.8.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA00491; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 14:07:22 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 14:07:22 -0800 (PST) From: Doug White X-Sender: dwhite@localhost Reply-To: Doug White To: Andrew cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 2.2-GAMMA & netatalk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 12 Mar 1997, Andrew wrote: > > Actually it builds out of the box. Should be pretty straightforward. And > > yes, a Makefile is in there. :) > > Would it be worth doing it up as a port then - even one that did no > modification but just so people could find it easily now the options are > built in to the kernel? I've been tempted to do this to a couple of other packages that are build-from-box just so people can find them. We would have to ask ports@freebsd.org if this is OK rationale for a port. The only problem with Netatalk is that since it is a beta, there is a pretty high percentage chance of the distfile going away and breaking the port. > I am willing to do it if people think its a good idea... Doug White | University of Oregon Internet: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu | Residence Networking Assistant http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dwhite | Computer Science Major