From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 20 14:56:37 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E8E5D3 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 14:56:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from uqs@FreeBSD.org) Received: from acme.spoerlein.net (acme.spoerlein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:131:23c2::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53A0D8FC0C for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 14:56:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (acme.spoerlein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:131:23c2::1]) by acme.spoerlein.net (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9KEuVLJ048154 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 20 Oct 2012 16:56:31 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from uqs@FreeBSD.org) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 16:56:30 +0200 From: Ulrich =?utf-8?B?U3DDtnJsZWlu?= To: "Julian H. Stacey" Subject: Re: RFC: removal of share/doc/{papers,psd,smm,usd} in 2 months Message-ID: <20121020145630.GK69724@acme.spoerlein.net> Mail-Followup-To: "Julian H. Stacey" , Eitan Adler , current@freebsd.org References: <20121020115217.GI69724@acme.spoerlein.net> <201210201224.q9KCOSvN097641@fire.js.berklix.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <201210201224.q9KCOSvN097641@fire.js.berklix.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Eitan Adler , current@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 14:56:37 -0000 On Sat, 2012-10-20 at 14:24:28 +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > Ulrich =?utf-8?B?U3DDtnJsZWlu?= wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 12:14:28 -0400, Eitan Adler wrote: > > > On 19 October 2012 10:36, Ulrich Spörlein wrote: > > > > Should people feel strongly about them, we might be able to move them > > > > over to the doc repository. > > > > > > Moving them to the doc repo loses the history, for what gain? > > > > > > You mention that the roff sources are 'naughty'. Are they holding up > > > some project? > > > > Replying to this only here: If you have a look at your calendar, you > > might get the reference :) > > > > They are holding up the removal of groff from the base system, which we > > can no longer update thanks to the project policy wrt. GPLv3. > > It's awful damage from just not wanting to upgrade to a new groff > with GPL3, to also throwing out older working groff plus text sources > formatted by it. I use groff daily. There'll always be textproc/groff. Cheers, Uli