From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Mar  7 07:16:36 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA19826
          for current-outgoing; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 07:16:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from horst.bfd.com (horst.bfd.com [204.160.242.10])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA19806;
          Fri, 7 Mar 1997 07:16:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from harlie.bfd.com (bastion.bfd.com [204.160.242.14]) by horst.bfd.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA25391; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 07:16:21 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 07:16:21 -0800 (PST)
From: "Eric J. Schwertfeger" <ejs@bfd.com>
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
cc: ports@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Getting /usr/ports everywhere...
In-Reply-To: <4821.857735697@time.cdrom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970307071407.1967A-100000@harlie.bfd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk



On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:

> To explain my rationale for this bold proposal:
> 
> /usr/ports with no distfiles is *small* - about 31MB for 810 ports
> right now, which seems a very reasonable cost/benefit ratio to me.

> Comments?  Partially fermented fruit?

Definitely.  The tarball is much smaller than 31MB, 3.35MB as of 970304.