From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 13 17:20:25 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00E5216A4CE; Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:20:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net (sccrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.202.55]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD8FB43D2F; Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:20:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from DougB@freebsd.org) Received: from dougb.net ([24.130.160.161]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP id <2004021401202301100l2h17e>; Sat, 14 Feb 2004 01:20:24 +0000 Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:20:22 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Barton To: Michael Nottebrock In-Reply-To: <200402122224.33190.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20040213171835.D98726@qbhto.arg> References: <200402110716.i1B7GH9D017803@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040212122617.T88889@qbhto.arg> <200402122224.33190.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= cc: Pav Lucistnik cc: "freebsd-ports@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: REINPLACE vs. perl -i; and why ports are too complex for their own good X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 01:20:25 -0000 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