From owner-freebsd-ports  Mon Jan 11 14:39:08 1999
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA12051
          for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 14:39:08 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from vader.cs.berkeley.edu (vader.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.38.234])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA12045
          for <ports@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 14:39:04 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu)
Received: from silvia.hip.berkeley.edu (sji-ca11-86.ix.netcom.com [209.109.237.86]) by vader.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA00988; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 14:38:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.hip.berkeley.edu (8.9.1/8.6.9) id OAA86617; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 14:38:11 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 14:38:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199901112238.OAA86617@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
To: pfgiffun@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co
CC: ports@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: <369A5BF8.F18C9545@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co>
	(pfgiffun@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co)
Subject: Re: Why so many ghostscript ports?
From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

 * My GNU ghostcript port was committed (thanks!), but I see in the web
 * that we still have two older versions that IMHO should be nuked...

You're probably right.  Does anyone have objections to nuking
ghostscript (version 2) and ghostscript4, now that we have GNU
ghostscript5 and Alladin ghostscript55?

Satoshi

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message