From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Nov  1 12:07:45 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id MAA26110
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 12:07:45 -0800
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (rah.star-gate.com [204.188.121.18])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id MAA26104
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 12:07:43 -0800
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost.v-site.net [127.0.0.1]) by rah.star-gate.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA04245; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 12:07:22 -0800
Message-Id: <199511012007.MAA04245@rah.star-gate.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.2 7/18/95
To: Julian Elischer <julian@ref.tfs.com>
cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard), grog@lemis.de, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: More nits 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 01 Nov 1995 11:40:31 PST."
             <199511011940.LAA23130@ref.tfs.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 12:07:21 -0800
From: "Amancio Hasty Jr." <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

>>> Julian Elischer said:

 > > The problem is that all 3 packages you name aren't distributions at
 > > all, they're packages.  If you're saying that I should make up some
 > > "fake distributions" that do nothing more than try to add packages, I
 > > guess that's possible.  What do the others think?
 > packages should be loadable as if they were just additions to the normal OS
 > they shouldn't be separate (except for being optional)

I agree with Julian !! 

As I say this , my two or three days of rebuilding a brand new FreeBSD for
my use will probably go down 8)


Say guys, don't forget to add a pointer or package for Informix's Wingz 
spreadsheet! You maybe suprprise at the number of folks who will be thrill
to have a spreasheet even if it is a linux binary!!

	Have Fun,
	Amancio