From owner-freebsd-ports  Fri Mar  7 05:44:38 1997
Return-Path: <owner-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA11796
          for ports-outgoing; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 05:44:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA11779;
          Fri, 7 Mar 1997 05:44:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3])
          by who.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.11) with ESMTP id FAA09861
          ; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 05:44:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [208.2.87.4] (cod.dataplex.net [208.2.87.4])
	by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA29813;
	Fri, 7 Mar 1997 07:42:22 -0600 (CST)
X-Sender: rkw@shrimp.dataplex.net
Message-Id: <l03010d0baf45c846c752@[208.2.87.4]>
In-Reply-To: <4821.857735697@time.cdrom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 07:35:01 -0600
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net>
Subject: Re: Getting /usr/ports everywhere...
Cc: ports@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org
Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

At 5:54 AM -0600 3/7/97, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>I've been thinking about this for awhile, and I'm wondering whether or
>not 2.2 might be a good time to unleash /usr/ports as a distribution
>tarball as part of the release.

I agree that this is a good idea.

Perhaps we could start thinking of the "ports" category
more like the "contrib" part of the tree and less as a
separate entity.