On 2010-02-03, Giridhari <giridh...@live.com.au> wrote: > I was very comfortable with pico, and nano. I am running a new system with > multiprocessor kernel, and currently have no support for the ZTE MF626 modem I > connect via cellular network with.
search the list archives for suggestions about the MF626. the diff for sys/dev/usb is probably ok, the problem the person trying it had was most likely to do with ppp configuration. > I have tried installing the package of pico > but it failed, so I installed it's dependencies, but pico still would not > install because it had partially installed, would not pkg_delete (not even > when forced), and I could not find a way to clean this up. failed? how? this is a really poor quality bug report. if you spent the time to write a good bug report instead of ranting, you would have it running by now. packages work pretty well for a lot of people. > I fly with those. PLEASE > INCLUDE PICO OR NANO OR BOTH IN A NEW SNAPSHOT pico is part of pine/alpine, Apache 2 licensed, not suitable for adding to base. nano is GPLv3 licensed, again not suitable for adding to base.
