On Mon, Jun 17 2019, Christopher Zimmermann <chr...@openbsd.org> wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 21:59:57 +0100 > Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> wrote: > >> If people do want to keep this port in the tree, I'd suggest >> rearranging things so that the changes are grouped together as much >> as possible (separate CONFIGURE_ARGS+= / LIB_DEPENDS+= blocks) to >> make it more obvious which are the parts for the compiler change and >> make it easier to switch back to a system compiler when upstream >> updates it. >> >> Really not sure about the value of having early 2000's pirac^W file >> sharing software in OpenBSD ports though ...
I see value in having (2 or more) ports to access the eDonkey network, AFAIK the other solution is net/amule. > I would be ok with removing it, too. Anyone else we should ask before > killing it? I'm not ok with removing it "just like that". -- jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
