From owner-freebsd-ports  Wed Oct 13 10:42:15 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 02AF115367; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from billf@FreeBSD.org)
Received: (from billf@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id KAA70316;
	Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from billf@FreeBSD.org)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: <billf@FreeBSD.org>
Message-Id: <199910131742.KAA70316@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: tkato@prontomail.ne.jp, billf@FreeBSD.org,
	freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: ports/14306: Update port: graphics/gd to 1.7.5
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

Synopsis: Update port: graphics/gd to 1.7.5

State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: billf
State-Changed-When: Wed Oct 13 10:38:55 PDT 1999
State-Changed-Why: 
As this PR mentiones ports/14261 already exists.
Since this is uuencoded (which goes against what the porting
guide says to do) I cannot make an intelligent choice
on which one to keep. Mental bitshifting was never my
strong ability.

In any case, either state why your PR is "better" then
the existing one or at least provide it in a format
that doesn't make figuring it out a pain for the
committers.

Thanks.


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