Sorry to jump in on the ports discussion, but I help out with packaging for the Fink project (which is conceptually similar to the ports system, but for Mac OS X) and this similar to frustrations that I deal with on Fink.
Most of the time, if a maintainer puts something into Fink or ports, it worked for them, and they assume it will work for others. If nobody emails back saying that it's broken, then your time spent on trying broken ports really is wasted, because somebody else will have to go through the same mistakes. On the other hand, if you let someone know that it is broken, the maintainer can take action. Often, you don't need to debug the *entire* problem, and you can go back to figuring out how to build from source sooner (if you can't wait for the maintainer to update the port). </soapbox> On 2/12/07, Herman J van der Merwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel, you asked why I did not use the port for NUT. Here is why. I did not use ports (which is my fav way of doing installations, because the port is broken for 2.0.5. I can either spend the time figuring out how to fix the port or to alternatively learn the program.
-- - Charles Lepple _______________________________________________ Nut-upsuser mailing list Nut-upsuser@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
