On 02/mar/07, at 17:49, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 10:06:14AM +0000, Cheng-Lung Sung wrote:
clsung 2007-03-01 10:06:14 UTC
FreeBSD ports repository
Modified files:
security/sshguard Makefile
Log:
- respect maintainer's insist on interactive part,
even IS_INTERACTIVE is discouraged
not glad to see such comment
This is disappointing. Can the maintainer explain why?
the app requires the user to choose what firewall to support for
building: IPFW or PF.
They are in XOR and there is no reasonable default in this.
Cheng-Lung chose PF default and removed is_interactive.
A feedback request would have avoided this qui pro quo.
- PORTREVISION is thus bumped.
Approved by: maintainer (implicit)
| +.if ! ( (defined(WITH_PF) && !defined(WITH_IPFW)) || !defined
(WITH_PF))
| +# some error occurred. Configure will handle this.
| +.endif
And what is this? :)
this used to be ".error blah" for checking the options' XOR-ness,
then removed because
options are also set when deinstalling/cleaning etc. Definitely
useless, replacing with a
comment about the problem appears the best to do. Actually I dunno
why this made its way
in the submission :)
bye
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
