Re: UPDATE: net/snort 2.9.5.5

2013-09-25 Thread Community - Dognaedis
On 09/24/2013 12:24 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2013/09/24 11:59, Community - Dognaedis wrote: Hi, I've been testing this on 5.2 and 5.3 amd64 without issues. but I've noticed that if I do a 'make update-plist' on net/daq I get a warning of SHARED_LIBS daq 2.0 vs 2.1 and sfbpf 1.0 vs 0.1.

Re: UPDATE: net/snort 2.9.5.5

2013-09-24 Thread Community - Dognaedis
Hi, I've been testing this on 5.2 and 5.3 amd64 without issues. but I've noticed that if I do a 'make update-plist' on net/daq I get a warning of SHARED_LIBS daq 2.0 vs 2.1 and sfbpf 1.0 vs 0.1. I've changed the Makefile so I don't get it. Is that the correct thing to do ? -- Cheers, Rodolfo

Re: UPDATE: net/snort 2.9.5.5

2013-09-24 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2013/09/24 11:59, Community - Dognaedis wrote: Hi, I've been testing this on 5.2 and 5.3 amd64 without issues. but I've noticed that if I do a 'make update-plist' on net/daq I get a warning of SHARED_LIBS daq 2.0 vs 2.1 and sfbpf 1.0 vs 0.1. I've changed the Makefile so I don't get it. Is

Re: UPDATE: net/snort 2.9.5.5

2013-09-24 Thread Adam Jeanguenat
On 2013-09-23 at 21:35:19 +0200, Markus Lude wrote: On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 02:31:11PM -0400, Lawrence Teo wrote: Here's a trivial update to Snort 2.9.5.5 (release notes are at https://www.snort.org/downloads/2548) I come up with a similar diff. I recently noticed the rc.d script has

UPDATE: net/snort 2.9.5.5

2013-09-23 Thread Lawrence Teo
Here's a trivial update to Snort 2.9.5.5 (release notes are at https://www.snort.org/downloads/2548) Tested on amd64, i386, macppc. OK? Index: Makefile === RCS file: /cvs/ports/net/snort/Makefile,v retrieving revision 1.81 diff -u

Re: UPDATE: net/snort 2.9.5.5

2013-09-23 Thread Markus Lude
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 02:31:11PM -0400, Lawrence Teo wrote: Here's a trivial update to Snort 2.9.5.5 (release notes are at https://www.snort.org/downloads/2548) I come up with a similar diff. I recently noticed the rc.d script has ownership _snort:_snort. I think it should be owned by root.