From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Jan 8 11:19:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA24071 for ports-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 11:19:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from ingenieria ([168.176.15.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id LAA24066 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 11:19:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by ingenieria (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA02713; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 13:58:08 -0500 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 13:58:07 -0500 (EST) From: Pedro Giffuni To: Warner Losh cc: Satoshi Asami , ache@nagual.ru, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Niklas Hallqvist: archivers/hpack.non-usa.only In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Warner Losh wrote: > > Letting the OpenBSD sort it out strikes me as a bad way to do this. > It sends the wrong message to the OpenBSD camp that they are not > important or worth consideration in the changes to the ports tree. > While this specific change may be better, framing the change in such > terms only exacerbates already tense relations between the two camps. > Just my view of the situation, not the opinion of any camps that I may > have my feet in... > OK, I agree. My solution was only thought of as a temporal fix, instead of having them define FreeBSD in their tree. I thought our relations were much better and they would like to colaborate for their own good; we have much to learn from their multiplatform environment. best regards, Pedro. > >Warner > Available for work Resume: http://www.village.org/villagers/imp/mwlres.html >