Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:45:44 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: stijn@win.tue.nl Cc: cperciva@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <20050807.164544.16299165.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20050807214618.GG70957@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> References: <20050807160452.GF70957@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> <42F632B3.90704@freebsd.org> <20050807214618.GG70957@pcwin002.win.tue.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20050807214618.GG70957@pcwin002.win.tue.nl>
Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl> writes:
: And last but certainly not least: thank you for sharing your software
: in the first place!
Agreed!
I'd love to see the tools that are used to create the streams
available. Many people will have need for it, and I think that we'd
do them a disservice to not make them available.
Having said that, I've had all of my concerns about this answered and
think it is a great idea to put portsnap into the base. I'd like to
see the generators in the tree too, but I'd not stand in the way of
having the base functionality there before the generators are there.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050807.164544.16299165.imp>