On Sat, 27 Dec 2008, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Hi Nikolay, Sebastian, Antoine, > > [ Cc:ing the secret maintainers ;-] > > Nikolay Sturm wrote on Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 09:37:16AM +0100: > > * Ingo Schwarze [2008-12-26]: > > >> I'm not really sure the patch is correct and doesn't break anything > >> else - though i currently don't see why any port build should be > >> allowed to bind(2) inet(4) sockets. > > > We have two ports explicitly allowing binding to 0.0.0.0:0, devel/mico > > and x11/gnustep/base. How do these cope with your proposed change? Does > > denying bind(2) as suggested and removing their local filter break them? > > Regarding devel/mico, see my last mail. > > Regarding x11/gnustep/base, there have been many updates since > the systrace.filter was created in the ports tree. > I suspect the systrace.filter is no more needed now > and can simply be deleted?
No. GNUstep+systrace is still WIP. If you looks closely how gnustep applications are built, then you'll find out that systrace is disabled in gnustep.port.mk... for now. So please don't remove this filter. -- Antoine
