From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Nov 12 11: 0:49 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from puck.firepipe.net (mcut-b-167.resnet.purdue.edu [128.211.209.167]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26DC137B479 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 11:00:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by puck.firepipe.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5034B18DB; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:00:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:00:45 -0500 From: Will Andrews To: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: updating rdist Message-ID: <20001112140045.K555@puck.firepipe.net> Reply-To: Will Andrews Mail-Followup-To: Will Andrews , arch@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20001111035905.A82574@dragon.nuxi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001111035905.A82574@dragon.nuxi.com>; from obrien@FreeBSD.ORG on Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 03:59:05AM -0800 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.1-STABLE i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 03:59:05AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > I have just committed a `44bsd-rdist' port. > So the question is, do we totally remove `rdist' from the base system, > or update it to rdist 6.1.5? I personally think it's better to remove it and update in ports. Cy Schubert makes a good point (if it is valid; I didn't check and don't know myself) that 44bsd-rdist and rdist6 are interoperable on mutally exclusive systems. Hence, it makes sense that a system administrator should need to look in ports for what they need. -- wca To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message