From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Mar 14 7:20: 8 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@hub.freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E7437B719 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:20:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f2EFK2q10909; Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:20:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:20:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200103141520.f2EFK2q10909@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Johann Visagie Subject: Re: ports/22865: New port: devel/omniORBpy Reply-To: Johann Visagie Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR ports/22865; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Johann Visagie To: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Cc: Subject: Re: ports/22865: New port: devel/omniORBpy Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:15:47 +0200 Could someone please just close this PR without taking any further action. Reasons: - I understand the interplay between omniORB and omniORBpy much better now than when I submitted this PR. I now believe that some of what I tried to achieve here would be ill-conceived. (E.g. many of the files here installed by an omniORBpy port should be installed by the base omniORB port. This is already reflected in a patch to the omniORB port which I've submitted to that port's maintainer.) - In the light of the above, I now think the best course of action would probably be to roll omniORBpy into the omniORB port. Since omniORB is already dependent on Python, this would add minimal bloat. I'll take up the matter with the omniORB port's maintainer once I have patches ready. - This version of omniORBpy in this PR is outdated anyway. Thanks, -- Johann To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message