From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Jan 24 21:56:39 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id VAA07140 for ports-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 21:56:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA07131 Wed, 24 Jan 1996 21:56:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA06836; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 21:56:04 -0800 To: "Julian H. Stacey" cc: ports@freebsd.org, jkh@freebsd.org, brent.welch@sun.com, n1epo4tl@ibmmail.com, root@thud.freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/mail/exmh In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 24 Jan 1996 22:47:44 +0100." <199601242147.WAA03843@vector.jhs.local> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 21:56:03 -0800 Message-ID: <6831.822549363@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > That is a perfectionist attitude. The fixes were trivial, & nearly all Hardly! As I said, it was hosed in almost *every* major respect, and to be honest if I were to do a port of exmh today I would simply start from the beginning. It would be less work than fixing yours. > This is _Nonsense_ ! It's already in use here, I'm using it to write this. Yes, because you, probably through the process of developing the port itself, managed to get it installed. You definitely didn't manage to do it using what you submitted - that would have been an impossibility, sorry. Jordan