From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Jan 1 11: 2:32 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from Genesis.Denninger.Net (209-176-244-82.inil.com [209.176.244.82]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 598E714C21 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 11:02:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from karl@Genesis.Denninger.Net) Received: (from karl@localhost) by Genesis.Denninger.Net (8.9.3/8.8.2) id NAA59505; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 13:02:26 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <20000101130226.B50949@Denninger.Net> Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 13:02:26 -0600 From: Karl Denninger To: Steve Price Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/15822: Update port misc/HomeDaemon to V0.99 References: <20000101123054.A37550@Denninger.Net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: ; from Steve Price on Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 12:48:18PM -0600 Organization: Karl's Sushi and Packet Smashers X-Die-Spammers: Spammers cheerfully broiled for supper and served with ketchup! Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 12:48:18PM -0600, Steve Price wrote: > On Sat, 1 Jan 2000, Karl Denninger wrote: > > # The package is worthless without hand configuration in any event (and those > # files are hand-configuration files). > # > # I'll take a look at the strategy on the ".sample" stuff, but inhernetly > # don't like it. There's a build-define that has to be set too, which may > # force me back to "NO_PACKAGE" anyway, in which case none of this really > # matters. > > Mind if I make a few changes to the port and send them your way? > I don't think it is a bad as is being let on. > > -steve Be my guest. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Web: http://childrens-justice.org Isn't it time we started putting KIDS first? See the above URL for a plan to do exactly that! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message