From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Feb 20 15:50:47 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA29975 for freebsd-stable-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 15:50:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA29963 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 15:50:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rkw@dataplex.net) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (user4.dataplex.net [208.2.87.4]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA04667; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 17:50:28 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: rkw@mail.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199802202235.PAA18313@harmony.village.org> References: Your message of "Fri, 20 Feb 1998 15:53:09 CST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 17:22:30 -0600 To: Warner Losh From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: Things I'd like to see in 2.2.6 Cc: FreeBSD-Stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk At 4:35 PM -0600 2/20/98, Warner Losh wrote: >I'd rather >upgrade to a new rev of xntpd rather than check them into the tree >(which is why I haven't checked them in yet...) Here's an interesting policy question. If some module requires a few patches to work properly in our OS/File structure, we typically build a "port" which consists of a Makefile and a set of patch files. Now, it the package author incorporates all of our patches, do we keep the port which now consists of simply a Makefile which primarily tells where to get the tarball? What of a "new" package which starts out without needing patches? Richard Wackerbarth To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message