Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 23:22:20 -0500 From: Tom Rhodes <darklogik@pittgoth.com> To: Valentino Vaschetto <logo@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Dima Dorfman <dima@trit.org>, doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: <port> replacement Message-ID: <3C69E9FC.5060303@pittgoth.com> References: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0202121847080.6137-100000@wrath.forked.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Valentino Vaschetto wrote: >You do have a point here. It even confuses me :). > >How about have the role be port and package, but >have them both do the same thing. > >Anyway, I think we should get this committed, instead of >letting it just be another good idea lost somewhere in cyberspace. > >-val > > Thinking, if they both do the same thing, then everyone would just use port cause it would most likly be less typeing... Ok, nevermind, lets get the new system setup, and then argu^H^H^Hdiscuss how it should work, or what may be better afterwords. Just because I do not think that port and package make sence because everything is a port and some have packages. And I do think it should do just like the old <port> did, like net/cvsup should take you to cvsup when using the web link, just because its easier for users. Regardless of my opinion, do what you feel would make the most sence... -- Tom (Darklogik) Rhodes www.Pittgoth.com Gothic Liberation Front www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve f To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C69E9FC.5060303>