Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 08:14:56 -0500 (EST) From: John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu> To: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.ru> Cc: Kevin Eliuk <kevin_eliuk@sunshine.net>, FreeBSD-Ports <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Error installing pine-3.96 Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970331080026.290I-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970331094706.299D-100000@nagual.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, [KOI8-R] Андрей Чернов wrote: > On Sun, 30 Mar 1997, Kevin Eliuk wrote: > > > > install -d -o bin -g bin -m 755 /usr/local/share/doc/pine > > > > > usage: install [-Ccdps] [-f flags] [-g group] [-m mode] [-o owner] file1 > > file2; or file1 ... fileN directory > > > Please help a NEWBIE with fixing the above. > > There is no fixes needed, ports are -current only. <soapbox> Is it just me, or is there something fundamentally amiss with the principle that ports are only supported on an unreleased version of the operating system used by a minority of the user base? Sure, it is sometimes a little extra work to check for 2.2.x, or 2.1.x compatability, and in some cases (particualarly 2.1.x) it just isn't practical but can porters at least *try* on occasion? This is especially valuable for (a) popular ports such as pine and (b) updated ports that contain important security fixes. For many ports, there simply isn't a good excuse to not work on older releases. If the ports mechanisim (bsd.port.mk) is the problem, can we provide a "port system upgrade" port? I find the blanket statement that ports are -current only very troubling, and potentially damaging to the FreeBSD user base. </soapbox> ...and now back to your regularly scheduled broadcast... -john
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.970331080026.290I-100000>