From owner-cvs-ports  Sun Mar 26 23:50:09 1995
Return-Path: cvs-ports-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id XAA12006 for cvs-ports-outgoing; Sun, 26 Mar 1995 23:50:09 -0800
Received: from precipice.Shockwave.COM (precipice.shockwave.com [171.69.108.33]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id XAA11981; Sun, 26 Mar 1995 23:49:58 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by precipice.Shockwave.COM (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA03696; Sun, 26 Mar 1995 23:48:21 -0800
Message-Id: <199503270748.XAA03696@precipice.Shockwave.COM>
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
cc: phk@ref.tfs.com, CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com, bde@freebsd.org,
        cvs-ports@freefall.cdrom.com, joerg@freefall.cdrom.com,
        nate@trout.sri.MT.net
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/bcc - Imported sources 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 27 Mar 1995 17:26:42 +1000."
             <199503270726.RAA11348@godzilla.zeta.org.au> 
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 23:48:20 -0800
From: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com>
Sender: cvs-ports-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

My question is more philisophical...  I think it's fantastic that we have
access to bcc, in fact, you have made my week with this announcement,  but
my question is: Why do we have to have -everything- in /src?  There are some
parts of the system that are so obscure that I question the need to be able
to rebuild them from source code with the default distribution (e.g. the
bootselect code).

My other objection to /src is we don't have a good way of tracking software
owned by other folks in /src.  Just look at the gnu directory. :-(

I can think of many things that I think only FreeBSD developers care about,
and most most people would rather not have as part of the base distribution,
that I'd like to see moved to ports (watch me win friends with this message,
since almost everything mentioned has been written by FreeBSD core folks):

	bcc
	ctm
	dmenu
	file2c