[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why were all DJB's ports removed? No more qmail?
- To: ports_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: Why were all DJB's ports removed? No more qmail?
- From: Henning Brauer <lists-openbsdports_(_at_)_bsws_(_dot_)_de>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 02:23:33 +0200
- Mail-followup-to: ports_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 10:51:10PM -0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Richard Johnson writes:
> > Aside from the hassle of getting thousands of users retrained
> Huh? We're talking about _new_ packages. The filenames are going to be
> new in any case. Why does the choice between /usr and /package affect
> your training costs?
What happens if I compile daemontools-0.76 on a machine with
daemontools-0.70 installed? The new binaries are somewhere in /package, nor?
And the old ones are still in /usr/local/bin/, and this one is in the path.
Old binaries are still used. Who introduces real-world problems here?
Don't call it theory, we had this issue. Don't remember wether it was on
dns@ or qmail_(_at_)__(_dot_)_
Oh, and why is daemontools-0.7[5|6] a _new_ package? Isn't it just an update
* Henning Brauer, hostmaster_(_at_)_bsws_(_dot_)_de, http://www.bsws.de *
* Roedingsmarkt 14, 20459 Hamburg, Germany *
Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity.