From owner-freebsd-ports Wed Feb 5 15:17:58 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B136137B401 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:17:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.noos.fr (nan-smtp-06.noos.net [212.198.2.75]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0899143FB1 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:17:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cyrille.lefevre@laposte.net) Received: (qmail 31843373 invoked by uid 0); 5 Feb 2003 23:17:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.gits.dyndns.org) ([212.198.231.27]) (envelope-sender ) by 212.198.2.75 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 5 Feb 2003 23:17:54 -0000 Received: from gits.gits.fr.invalid (na7j93b8364ozn37@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.gits.dyndns.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h15NHsC0017643 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 00:17:54 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from cyrille.lefevre@laposte.net) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 00:17:46 +0100 To: Alexander Leidinger Cc: alane@geeksrus.net, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: lame > lame-devel Message-ID: <20030205231746.GC13772@gits.dyndns.org> References: <20030203134841.GA88265@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> <20030204115854.65388cec.Alexander@Leidinger.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030204115854.65388cec.Alexander@Leidinger.net> Organization: ACME X-Face: V|+c;4!|B?E%BE^{E6);aI.[< X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.61 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 11:58:54AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:48:41 -0500 > "AlanE [admin]" wrote: > > > Does anyone else find it strange that lame-devel is an older, somewhat > > broken port, when compared to lame? Maybe it should be retired and left > > to live out its golden years in the Attic. Just a thought... > > I expect a new beta version of LAME in some months (perhaps one or two). > Then lame-devel would be nice to have. I know we can bring it back to > life from the Attic, but wouldn't it be enough to mark it broken until > then? I've submited a PR asking for the deletion of lame-devel a few days ago since my previous emails to this ml where ignored... Cyrille. -- Cyrille Lefevre mailto:cyrille.lefevre@laposte.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message