Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:21:15 -0400 (EDT) From: "Joe \"Marcus\" Clarke" <marcus@miami.edu> To: Doug <Doug@gorean.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/12400: Bind 8.2 removed from ports Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.05.9906261619140.12832-100000@jaguar.ir.miami.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906261720.KAA13744@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The CVS log shows that bind 8.2 should have been committed to 3.2-RELEASE with Makefile revision 19. This is not the case. Doing a `what named` shows bind is still 8.1.2. I agree with Doug, bind should remain as a port even if the system has the current versions since older fbsd releases may not. Joe Clarke On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Doug wrote: > The following reply was made to PR ports/12400; it has been noted by GNATS. > > From: Doug <Doug@gorean.org> > To: mvh@ix.netcom.com > Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: ports/12400: Bind 8.2 removed from ports > Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 10:16:10 -0700 > > mvh@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > > >Description: > > Bind 8.2 was removed from ports because "It's been in the base system for > > a while now". Actually, 8.1.2 is what's in -current and 4.9.* is what's > > in the 2.2 branch. 8.2 adds features that are not in 8.1.2. I don't > > know why 8.2 isn't in current, but I do need it at times. > > Also, BIND 8.2.1 is out, and is a highly recommended upgrade from the > slightly tempermental 8.2 release. I agree that there should always be a > BIND port, it makes it easier to keep up to date in -stable while -current > tests the latest stuff. > > Doug > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.4.05.9906261619140.12832-100000>