From owner-freebsd-ports  Sun Nov  5 13: 2:28 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from tigerdyr.candid.dk (tigerdyr.candid.dk [193.162.142.120])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8CCB37B4C5
	for <FreeBSD-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun,  5 Nov 2000 13:02:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by tigerdyr.candid.dk (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id D5E01988A; Sun,  5 Nov 2000 22:02:25 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:02:25 +0100
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Michael_Lyngb=F8l?= <lyngbol@candid.dk>
To: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu>
Cc: FreeBSD-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: ports/22616: new port of GQmpeg devel
Message-ID: <20001105220225.A98322@tigerdyr.candid.dk>
References: <200011051019.eA5AJnR52545@bifrost.lyngbol.dk> <20001105140620.C51062@puck.firepipe.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20001105140620.C51062@puck.firepipe.net>; from will@physics.purdue.edu on Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 02:06:20PM -0500
X-Operating-System: FreeBSD/i386 4.1.1-STABLE
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 02:06:20PM -0500, Will Andrews wrote:
> > >Synopsis:       new port of GQmpeg (devel version)
> 
> Is there any decent reason why we can't just merge this into the current
> version of gqmpeg we have in the tree?  I've always been mistrustful of
> what other developers call ``development'' until I see for myself.

Not for me.

I'd be more than happy to see this as an update of the existing port.

I just made it a new port because I don't know opinions about having
a 'stable' port updated with a 'devel' version?!

/Michael


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