Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:20:22 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> Cc: "freebsd-ports@freebsd.org" <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: REINPLACE vs. perl -i; and why ports are too complex for their own good Message-ID: <20040213171835.D98726@qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <200402122224.33190.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> References: <200402110716.i1B7GH9D017803@repoman.freebsd.org> <xzplln8k3fp.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20040212122617.T88889@qbhto.arg> <200402122224.33190.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> On Thursday 12 February 2004 21:41, Doug Barton wrote:
> > Now, years later, we are STILL arguing about this topic,
>
> And the argument has become even more ridiculous. Please, no bikeshedding over
> this one again, _please_.
It wasn't my intention to re-open the argument. Simply to use this as an
example to illustrate my point.
> I find the whole "oh my god, ports don't do stuff on
> $ancient_version_of_freebsd" whine to be totally pointless.
And I find the fact that you chose to interpret the issue this way to be
very disturbing, but I promised not to re-open the argument. :(
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040213171835.D98726>