From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Aug 23 14:24:41 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.sunesi.net (ns1.sunesi.net [196.15.192.194]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51CC637B43C for ; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:24:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbm by ns1.sunesi.net with local (Exim 3.03 #1) id 13Ri0U-0004CF-00; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 23:24:22 +0200 Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 23:24:22 +0200 From: Neil Blakey-Milner To: "Lawrence N. King " Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -ssl Ports Message-ID: <20000823232421.A16053@mithrandr.moria.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from missnglnk@sneakerz.org on Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 04:01:40PM -0500 Organization: Sunesi Clinical Systems X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.3-RELEASE i386 X-URL: http://rucus.ru.ac.za/~nbm/ Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed 2000-08-23 (16:01), Lawrence N. King wrote: > Should new/current -ssl ports be integrated with their existing > counterparts or should they remain separate? I'd propose doing master ports like vim5 and vim-lite, and w3m and w3m-ssl. w3m/w3m-ssl is a good example. Neil -- Neil Blakey-Milner Sunesi Clinical Systems nbm@mithrandr.moria.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message