> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Then it`s sad that the port was marked for 4.0... > > Your ignorance continues to astound, *it isn't* marked for 4.0. > Sometimes it is easier to work on something in-tree. > > -d
Damien, briefly.. you`re talking junk. What did I do? I tried a Port of OpenBSD 4.0 on the only avaiable architecture. So what are you talking about? If you love to have it in tree even if it`s brocken the Port itself could get marked as brocken (there some of those Ports) so that nobody on any architecture simply tries to build it. Or you even could have take care that the port gets NOT tagged for 4.0 (but then it still remains in the Ports-tree for current, clever, or?). So who`s ignorant here? It could have been done better... EOF Kind regards, Sebastian
