On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:21:45AM -0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > вівторок 22 квітень 2008 06:34 до, Andrew Pantyukhin Ви написали: > > So I guess we'll have to stick to using lzma from ports for now. > > Well, we lived with bzip2 from ports for quite a while... > > The real problem with lzma right now is that lzmautils (already marked as > incompatible with lzma) installs its own lzma executable, with incompatible > command-line arguments :-( > > Maybe, instead of marking the ports as mutually incompatible, one of them > could be modified to install executables under different names?..
We had a talk with naddy about it, but since there are people using archivers/lzma with whatever syntax it has, in scripted environments, I'm inclined not to surprise them very much. I think a wrapper can be added to lzmautils for full backwards-compatibility, I may look at it later. Also, the lzmautils website claims it's of alpha-quality, so I'm also hesitant to rely on it completely. At any rate, I think having a reference implementation of lzma util in ports is a good thing. OTOH, changing lzmautils' lzma to another name would probably confuse gtar (I'm not sure though). _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
