Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:21:01 -0500 From: "Donald J . Maddox" <dmaddox@sc.rr.com> To: Clive Lin <clive@CirX.ORG> Cc: "Donald J . Maddox" <dmaddox@sc.rr.com>, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/dictd Makefile pkg-plist Message-ID: <20010128152101.A24300@cae88-102-101.sc.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <20010129041305.A27396@cartier.cirx.org>; from clive@CirX.ORG on Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 04:13:05AM %2B0800 References: <200101281916.f0SJGf219672@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010128142529.A23690@cae88-102-101.sc.rr.com> <20010129035349.A77072@cartier.cirx.org> <20010129041305.A27396@cartier.cirx.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 04:13:05AM +0800, Clive Lin wrote: > Now I under stand what you say. Still, yet another reason. The dict > client and server are 2 things. Adding dependency would raise > unnecessary anony problems. For example, after the dictd installed, > the dict client would be marked as "Needed by dictd." What will happen > if the dict client upgraded ? I have to pkg_delete the dictd and > dictd-database (oh, fat monster), then I could safely pkg_delete > the dict client and upgrade it. That's my personal concern, though.. Well, I wasn't advocating a dependency :) I was saying 'remove the two lines in the makefile that cause this port not to install the "dict" binary and manpage, and then add it to the plist' :) I guess that it could be argued that it is technically more correct to have two ports, but frankly the client is tiny, and a second port seems like overkill in this case. 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?20010128152101.A24300>