Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.Hawaii.Edu!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!nntp.primenet.com!news1.best.com!bofh.noc.best.net!not-for-mail
From: rone@bofh.noc.best.net (Ron Echeverri)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Tcp_wrappers won't work!
Date: 20 Oct 1996 14:39:47 -0700
Organization: fidgety systems administrators gmbh
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <54e673$a4a@bofh.noc.best.net>
References: <548avr$184@news.ox.ac.uk> <01bbbd62$271bd240$32498796@rc6855.ResComp.Arizona.EDU> <549hup$l92@dewey.udel.edu> <54dhoh$obk@alba.roble.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bofh.noc.best.net
In article <54dhoh$obk@alba.roble.com>,
Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com> wrote:
>This seems to be the achillies heel of FreeBSD, the ports that is. So
>many of them are hastily compiled, have incorrect documentation, or
>just won't compile in the first place. To bad such a clean OS has so
>many dirty ports.
I've never had a port, in recent memory, that tried to compile and
failed, excepting a handful of ports which won't either because the
BROKEN flag is set in the Makefile, or because the checksum failed
(which is annoying, but apparently not annoying enough for me to mail
the person responsible for the port and let them know that it failed
:-) This is the first one i've found to have incorrect documentation...
i wonder which ones you mean when you say "so many dirty ports".
rone
--
Ron Echeverri Best Internet Barista rone@best.net
=================================================================
"The banana _hates_ the apple." - Ratbert