Well, the good news is, I managed to get developer contact, and am
working with him to get configure options in which the paths can
accept a prefix at configure time. The also good news is the next
release, do out very soon, should have these changes.
Pureftpd starts with inetd in the launchd item I made, which the
developer told me is a poor way to do so, and will be dropped from
support. I did not want to distract from the other issues I brought up.
Can anyone speculate as to why inetd would be a bad way to start any
server, ftp or otherwise?
--
Scott * If you contact me off list replace talklists@ with scott@ *
On Oct 10, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
My reviews of portfiles often just consist of verifying they
install, do not produce mtree warnings, do not link with libraries
they don't declare dependencies on, that they're
UsingTheRightCompiler, that livecheck works, that the universal
variant works, etc. Usually just a subset of those unless I'm
feeling particularly ambitious. But I seldom check that the software
being ported works properly, because I would seldom have the
expertise needed to do so. For example, I haven't ever set up an ftp
server, so trying to figure out how to set up pureftpd and verify it
works correctly would be much more effort than I would be willing to
put in. Since you're interested in the software and presumably use
it, you may be the best one to verify it works. And of course, if we
commit it and it's broken in some way, I'm sure other users will
notice and submit bug reports, and we can fix it then. This is not
to say we shouldn't carefully test things before committing, but
there's a limit to how thorough we need to be. :)
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
