On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 10:20:29PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: > On 4 Jul 2011 21:47, "Eitan Adler" <li...@eitanadler.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Jason Hellenthal <jh...@dataix.net> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi ohauer@ > > > > > > I was curious if you would be intnerested in consolidating > > > security/zenmap into security/nmap with the options framework and > > > deprecating security/zenmap since it continually falls pretty far behind > > > newer versions of nmap in ports. > > > > Remember that with the OPTIONS framework only one package gets > > generated: whatever the default OPTION is. Not everyone wants the GUI > > and those who want the GUI may not want to build the port from source. > > > > Ok... so how about a master/slave port? > > That'd keep everything in sync. >
That would be perfect. I retract what I said about the options framework idea. That would take and awfulhack just to get around that and I personally would not like to see that happen. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
