On 2011-07-04 23:20, 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.
Hm, the only part both ports share is the sourefile ... We can try a master/slave, but I suspect it will end in many additional .ifdef/.ifndef in the nmap Makefile which makes maintenance harder. Additional both ports should keep a own pkg-plist (not a shared one). _______________________________________________ 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"
