From owner-freebsd-security Wed Oct 13 7:29:22 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.via-net-works.net.ar (ns1.via-net-works.net.ar [200.10.100.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C764315246 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 07:29:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fpscha@ns1.via-net-works.net.ar) Received: (from fpscha@localhost) by ns1.via-net-works.net.ar (8.8.5/8.8.4) id LAA10858; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:30:28 -0300 (GMT) From: Fernando Schapachnik Message-Id: <199910131430.LAA10858@ns1.via-net-works.net.ar> Subject: Re: FreeSSH In-Reply-To: <199910131420.XAA70912@ares.maths.adelaide.edu.au> from Greg Lewis at "Oct 13, 99 11:50:56 pm" To: glewis@trc.adelaide.edu.au (Greg Lewis) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:30:28 -0300 (GMT) Cc: fpscha@via-net-works.net.ar, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Reply-To: Fernando Schapachnik X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL40 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org En un mensaje anterior, Greg Lewis escribió: > > > In the interests of minimising bloat we could balance its inclusion by > > > deleting something like, say, uucp. > > > (:-) for the uucps users) > > > > I'm a proud UUCP user, but I wouldn't mind having to install it as a > > package, if the final result will be the same (modulo a couple of sed > > -e "s@usr@usr/local@g" maybe). > > I didn't mean to give any offense to uucp users -- this was a joke :) Of course :) But I mean it. If UUCP could be turn into a package, with no real difference but having to install it appart I think no UUCP user would consider it a real loss. Fernando P. Schapachnik Administración de la red VIA Net Works Argentina SA Diagonal Roque Sáenz Peña 971, 4º y 5º piso. 1035 - Capital Federal, Argentina. (54-11) 4323-3333 http://www.via-net-works.net.ar To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message