From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jul 8 01:38:44 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id BAA16982 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 01:38:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.digital.com (mail1.digital.com [204.123.2.50]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA16970 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 01:38:34 -0700 (PDT) From: garyj@frt.dec.com Received: from cssmuc.frt.dec.com by mail1.digital.com (5.65 EXP 4/12/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA18286; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 01:33:39 -0700 Received: from localhost by cssmuc.frt.dec.com; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/14Nov95-0232PM) id AA06310; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:33:32 +0200 Message-Id: <9607080833.AA06310@cssmuc.frt.dec.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.4 10/10/95 To: hackers%freebsd.org@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com In-Reply-To: Message from "Jordan K. Hubbard" of Sun, 07 Jul 96 23:49:07 PDT. Reply-To: gjennejohn@frt.dec.com Subject: Re: CD distribution layout vs FTP distribution layout. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 08 Jul 96 10:33:32 +0200 X-Mts: smtp Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk jkh@time.cdrom.com writes: > Any strenuous objections to folding these into one location in -current? > It's already too much of a doc / general confusion hit for 2.1.5 so > I'm going to leave things there as they are, but for 2.2... > > Comments? > seems perfectly reasonable to me, especially if it simplifies the installation software. One less source of potential errors. --- Gary Jennejohn (work) gjennejohn@frt.dec.com (home) Gary.Jennejohn@munich.netsurf.de (play) gj@freebsd.org