From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Jun 19 10:47:37 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA04858
          for current-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 10:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA04846
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 10:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from julian@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA12478; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 10:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199606191747.KAA12478@ref.tfs.com>
Subject: Re: fetch - time to kill ncftp?
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 10:47:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: "JULIAN Elischer" <julian@ref.tfs.com>
Cc: current@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <4103.835183596@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Jun 19, 96 04:26:36 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 ME8b]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

 I dunno
 I kinda like it..
 if id is nuked, then please make sure it goes into ports..
 dos based users like the little bar-graph :)

 julian
> 
> 
> 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
>