From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Feb 12 12:25:48 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mail.utexas.edu (wb3-a.mail.utexas.edu [128.83.126.138]) by builder.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AB6D83FF5 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:25:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 26754 invoked by uid 0); 12 Feb 2000 20:25:44 -0000 Received: from dial-104-27.ots.utexas.edu (HELO localhost.localdomain) (128.83.176.123) by umbs-smtp-3 with SMTP; 12 Feb 2000 20:25:44 -0000 From: Richard Wackerbarth To: "David O'Brien" Subject: Re: /usr/ports/ too big? Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 13:58:14 -0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20000209215806.M99353@abc.123.org> <00021212385600.02144@localhost.localdomain> <20000212111504.N5570@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20000212111504.N5570@dragon.nuxi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00021214243300.02300@localhost.localdomain> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, David O'Brien wrote: > **** TAKE THIS TO PORTS@FREEBSD.ORG ***** Agreed. This is where the depth of the discussion should take place. > This is NOT a -current issue!! I beg to differ. Any significant change to the status-quo is a -current issue. To adopt ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE without widespread public notice is just inviting grumblings of "backroom politics". Just see what happens if the City Council votes to close Main Street and explains " this was discussed at a Public Hearing before the Public Works Commission" And some of us, myself included, are advocating making FreeBSD into a small set of ports! I guess that doesn't affect very many people :-) -- Richard Wackerbarth rkw@Dataplex.NET To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message