On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:34:02 -0800
Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 1/20/2010 6:47 PM, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
Some may not don't mind
installing binaries from elsewhere, but FreeSBD could protect more,
What is it that you're trying to protect people from? In other words,
what
Hi,
Reference:
From: Gary Jennejohn gary.jennej...@freenet.de
Reply-to: gary.jennej...@freenet.de
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:01:46 +0100
Message-id: 20100121170146.672ac...@ernst.jennejohn.org
Gary Jennejohn wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:34:02 -0800
Doug Barton
I'm sorry, you still haven't answered my questions:
1. What dangers are you trying to protect users from?
2. Why do you feel that existing safeguards for what goes into the ports
tree are not adequate?
Responding indirectly to your last post, the ports infrastructure is
already VERY complex.
Hi ports@ people,
Suggestion: A new variable for a few ports Makefiles, eg
/usr/ports/www/opera/Makefile
BINARY=To install binaries lacking sources, use RISK_BINARIES=YES
to over-ride it one would use eg
cd /usr/ports ; make RISK_BINARIES=YES install
It could work similarly to
