Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 11:12:54 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Johan van Selst <johans@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/editors Makefile ports/editors/ged Makefile distinfo pkg-descr Message-ID: <20120104111254.GC3811@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20120104092337.GA78009@mud.stack.nl> References: <201201021214.q02CErbi098315@repoman.freebsd.org> <4F024051.1030907@FreeBSD.org> <20120104092337.GA78009@mud.stack.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 10:23:38AM +0100, Johan van Selst wrote: > Actually, I don't really see the benefit of this port. But there was > a request for it and it seemed like little effort to maintain it ;) Per quoted above, it should not be added. Contrary to GNU versions of sed and awk, if base ed(1) can be used as drop-in replacement, over-populating ports collection just because someone wanted to remain their work in the history does not warrant it. I believe the best would be to follow up with maintainer and either 1) find out and explain in pkg-descr what this port can do that base ed(1) cannot; or 2) cvs rm it. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120104111254.GC3811>