From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Jun 19 10:28:36 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA02772
          for current-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 10:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from covina.lightside.com (covina.lightside.com [207.67.176.1])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA02763
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 10:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by covina.lightside.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #6)
	id m0uWR3K-0004KCC; Wed, 19 Jun 96 10:28 PDT
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 10:28:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jake Hamby <jehamby@lightside.com>
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: fetch - time to kill ncftp?
In-Reply-To: <4103.835183596@time.cdrom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.AUX.3.91.960619102739.4624A-100000@covina.lightside.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 19 Jun 1996, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:

> Ya know, the only reason I ever brought ncftp into the source tree was
> so that bsd.port.mk could use it, and now that we have `fetch' I'm
> wondering if we might not throw a bone to the anti-bloatists and move
> ncftp back to the ports collection?
> 
> If there are no major outcries to the contrary, I'll do it in a few
> days.
> 
> 					Jordan

Well, since NcFTP 2 is so much better anyway, and it is in the ports 
collection, I wouldn't care if you get rid of NcFTP 1.

---Jake