From owner-freebsd-current Mon Apr 20 13:21:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA06739 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:21:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from sasami.jurai.net (winter@sasami.jurai.net [207.153.65.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06628 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 20:20:46 GMT (envelope-from winter@jurai.net) Received: from localhost (winter@localhost) by sasami.jurai.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA07989; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:20:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:20:22 -0400 (EDT) From: "Matthew N. Dodd" To: Nathan Dorfman cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why is xtend in the base system? In-Reply-To: <19980420155034.A4214@rtfm.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Nathan Dorfman wrote: > Why is xtend in the base system, anyway? It's definitely not > essential, AFAICS. Maybe it should be moved into ports? Because it uses kernel drivers and would be prone to getting crufty if it wasn't in the base. Leave it be, I actually want to play with X10 at some point. /* Matthew N. Dodd | A memory retaining a love you had for life winter@jurai.net | As cruel as it seems nothing ever seems to http://www.jurai.net/~winter | go right - FLA M 3.1:53 */ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message