On Thu, January 8, 2009 00:45, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2009/01/07 13:31, Aaron Stellman wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 09:59:37PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Sat, 03.01.2009 at 20:51:40 +0300, Kirill S. Bychkov >> <ya...@linklevel.net> wrote: >> > > This is a resubmit of apcupsd port. >> > > Any comments/oks? >> > >> > I have no comment on the port, just a question: What would be the >> > advantage of using apcupsd in favour of nut? >> >> Lacking advantage over nut is not a valid reason why apcupsd shouldn't >> be imported to ports. There are multiple ports in the tree that do >> redundant tasks -- it's a matter of choice. I used to use apcupsd myself, >> and was forced to adopt nut. I don't regret it in any way. > > The forerunner to this is already in-tree. The name changed slightly > (removed a -) but I don't see why we shouldn't just keep the old name > so that existing users can upgrade to it with pkg_add -u.
Hi. Because they are incompatible. And you can think about apc-upsd and apcupsd like two different programs. BTW, is anyone still using apc-upsd? -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
