Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 17:33:18 -0400
From: Jason Hellenthal <jhell@DataIX.net>
To: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>
Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com>, ohauer@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: security/{nmap,zenmap} consolodation
Message-ID: <20110704213318.GA4502@DataIX.net>
In-Reply-To: <CADLo8391Y4uG-xVA78rNZVLMoY7m1EoLWHNYJp7r0SvBxMp-Cw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110704144853.GA42273@DataIX.net> <CAF6rxgnAy%2By6pVtCg1bHK_FpV9YsXMhM3vXs2cRutFZ=OUU=nw@mail.gmail.com> <CADLo8391Y4uG-xVA78rNZVLMoY7m1EoLWHNYJp7r0SvBxMp-Cw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 10:20:29PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: > On 4 Jul 2011 21:47, "Eitan Adler" <lists@eitanadler.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Jason Hellenthal <jhell@dataix.net> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi ohauer@ > > > > > > I was curious if you would be intnerested in consolidating > > > security/zenmap into security/nmap with the options framework and > > > deprecating security/zenmap since it continually falls pretty far behind > > > newer versions of nmap in ports. > > > > Remember that with the OPTIONS framework only one package gets > > generated: whatever the default OPTION is. Not everyone wants the GUI > > and those who want the GUI may not want to build the port from source. > > > > Ok... so how about a master/slave port? > > That'd keep everything in sync. > That would be perfect. I retract what I said about the options framework idea. That would take and awfulhack just to get around that and I personally would not like to see that happen.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110704213318.GA4502>