On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:46:07 -0500 (CDT), Lars Eighner <luvbeas...@larseighner.com> wrote: >On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:24:38 -0500 (CDT), Lars Eighner >><luvbeas...@larseighner.com> wrote: >>> Evidently by making it necessary to learn yet another scripting >>> language to configure it. Other than personal profit I cannot see >>> why people are clinging like grim death to something this fubar. >>> Really, let's go past this one more time: >>> >>> "Sure, sendmail.cf is hard to work with so the solution is you learn >>> m4!" >>> >>> Did you look at the link he offered? How helpful is that? >>> >>> Beside which, m4 is a PORT. So if sendmail is not configurable >>> without a port, why isn't it a port? >> >> Can we go back to our regular hacking, please? m4 is not a port: >> >> $ which m4 >> /usr/bin/m4 > > Evidently my package database is corrupt in some way, because it shows > m4 as an installed port. I wonder how that happened, how to fix it, > and if it will bite if I leave it alone.
Some ports need the GNU version of `m4'. So they install a second copy of m4 in `/usr/local'. You should be able to see the ports that depend on GNU m4 with pkg_info. On my system this shows: : $ pkg_info -R m4\* : Information for m4-1.4.13,1: : : Required by: : automake-1.5_5,1 : automake-1.6.3_1 : automake-1.9.6_3 : bison-2.4.1,1 : autoconf-2.62 : automake-1.10.1 _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"