Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 00:55:08 +0200 From: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@freebsd.org> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@Glue.umd.edu> Cc: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee>, Stefan Esser <se@ZPR.Uni-Koeln.DE>, andreas@klemm.gtn.com, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/print/ghostscript4 Message-ID: <199607312255.AAA00426@vector.jhs.no_domain> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 30 Jul 1996 17:20:13 EDT." <Pine.OSF.3.91.960730171731.18093E-100000@fiber.eng.umd.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Reference: > From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@Glue.umd.edu> > > > > It is not the case actually - there are cases when there is no newer > > file, just a link with the new name to the old file... > > I realize it's a case the the same data, new name, but it's the new name > that I think is important. Those of us that know enough, can simply > rename the darn thing in our ports/distfiles, and I think that we owe > that much to our less sophisticated users, not to inject gratuitous > confusion. This is too much of a hack for it to be institutionalized. I disagree, after sucking megs of identical ghostscript fonts, I don't want to waste my phone bill on further duplicates, at the next minor rev. no. upgrade, & object to any idea of ftp'ing future megs of identical data, just to get a trivial filename update. Those people who aren't clued up can always buy CD-ROMs, with everything pre-configured. I feel zero need to subsidise them with my phone bill; Sorry, but they can go buy a CD-ROM, & the profit can help maintain WC Inc profit levels, to enable WC to subsidise freebsd.org. They (the CD purchasers) are getting a $2000 OS for $40, that's cheap enough, no need to subsidise it further with our personal phone bills ! Julian -- Julian H. Stacey jhs@freebsd.org http://www.freebsd.org/~jhs/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607312255.AAA00426>