From owner-freebsd-questions  Sun Apr  2 21:21:57 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from groggy.anchorage.ptialaska.net (groggy.anchorage.ptialaska.net [198.70.228.224])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E4CF37BB2D
	for <questions@freebsd.org>; Sun,  2 Apr 2000 21:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from groggy@iname.com)
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by groggy.anchorage.ptialaska.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA02429
	for questions@freebsd.org; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 20:21:41 -0800 (AKDT)
	(envelope-from groggy@iname.com)
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 20:21:41 -0800 (AKDT)
From: groggy@iname.com
Message-Id: <200004030421.UAA02429@groggy.anchorage.ptialaska.net>
Subject: packages
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

i use the packages collection alot
(for various reasons - as opposed to ports)

and am wondering why the packages never seem to
mirror the ports collection after a new release.

for example, in the 4.0-RELEASE,
the following packages do not exist,
even though the ports do.

ircii-4.4S
lynx (of any kind)
pgp 2.6.2 (and rsaref)
ghostscript-6.01

i mean, these aren't "trivial" packages.
can some mechamism be installed so that
the packages collection remains as complete
as the ports collection?

is it OK to use 3.4 packages with 4.0?

thanks, please reply off list as well ...


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