On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > "WANTDESCRYPTLINKS" is the historical behaviour which hasn't
> > changed.
>
> Are you sure? I think the historical behaviour was to _not_
> touch the symlinks at all, which I thought was a very sensible
> and POLA-conforming default. I'm always u
Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in list.freebsd-current:
> DES crypt links have a "higher priority" than MD5 crypt links - if you do
> a make install in secure/lib/libcrypt or lib/libcrypt, each will overwrite
> the libcrypt links of the other. The difference is that make world runs
>
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Oliver Fromme wrote:
>
> > Maybe I'm just too dumb... It's my understanding that the
> > purpose of the ``NODESCRYPTLINKS'' option in make.conf is
> > to prevent overwriting the libcrypt symlinks in /usr/lib.
> > Well, it doesn't
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Maybe I'm just too dumb... It's my understanding that the
> purpose of the ``NODESCRYPTLINKS'' option in make.conf is
> to prevent overwriting the libcrypt symlinks in /usr/lib.
> Well, it doesn't work.
>
> I cvsupped today in the morning (~ 9:00 UTC
Oliver Fromme wrote:
>
> Maybe I'm just too dumb... It's my understanding that the
> purpose of the ``NODESCRYPTLINKS'' option in make.conf is
> to prevent overwriting the libcrypt symlinks in /usr/lib.
> Well, it doesn't work.
>
> I cvsupped today in the morning (~ 9:00 UTC on Sunday), added
>
Maybe I'm just too dumb... It's my understanding that the
purpose of the ``NODESCRYPTLINKS'' option in make.conf is
to prevent overwriting the libcrypt symlinks in /usr/lib.
Well, it doesn't work.
I cvsupped today in the morning (~ 9:00 UTC on Sunday), added
NODESCRYPTLINKS=true to /etc/make.con
