From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Sep 9 14:38:30 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mail.hiwaay.net (fly.HiWAAY.net [208.147.154.56]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F6237B424; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 14:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bonsai.hiwaay.net (tnt6-216-180-4-137.dialup.HiWAAY.net [216.180.4.137]) by mail.hiwaay.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e89Lc3706246; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 16:38:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from steve@localhost) by bonsai.hiwaay.net (8.11.0/8.9.3) id e89LblU31691; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 16:37:47 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from steve) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 16:37:40 -0500 From: Steve Price To: Kris Kennaway Cc: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami , Steve Price , Will Andrews , ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Ports Options Paper Message-ID: <20000909163740.F2089@bonsai.hiwaay.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from kris@FreeBSD.ORG on Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 01:29:53AM -0700 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 01:29:53AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: # On 8 Sep 2000, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote: # # > As I said before, this is a solved problem. Please show why MASTERDIR # > is not appropriate if you want to continue this discussion. ("It is a # > hackish way" is not a valid reason. :) # # Yeah..this is a fair point. Even if you guys don't like the way it # currently works, it does work and there are better things we should be # working on - this can always be improved later. I happen to also subscribe to the one port, one package guideline. And yes you are right we have much bigger fish to fry. What we have today works even though it might be suboptimal. -steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message