From owner-freebsd-ports  Sun Apr  7 14:53:26 1996
Return-Path: owner-ports
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id OAA05904
          for ports-outgoing; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 14:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA05898
          Sun, 7 Apr 1996 14:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA05199; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 14:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
cc: ports@freebsd.org, gibbs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: NO_PACKAGE and NO_CDROM 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 07 Apr 1996 14:04:08 PDT."
             <199604072104.OAA29394@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> 
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 14:53:07 -0700
Message-ID: <5197.828913987@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>  * Anyone object to the idea of ports-{foo,bar,...} going away and being
>  * replaced by one ports-all?  Does anyone here even sup a partial
>  * ports tree?  I know that I never have..
> 
> Seems like this is working now, is it "official"?  Should I go fix the 
> sample supfiles and the one on wcarchive?
> 
> Satoshi

Well, I'm still not convinced that people are keen to have the
individual ones go away, in which case ports-all just becomes an added
convenience rather than a replacement.

Any last screams before I nuke ports-!all ?

					Jordan