Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 16:07:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Mark Ovens <mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>, Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca>, Patrick Seal <patseal@hyperhost.net>, "Chad R. Larson" <chad@DCFinc.com>, sheldonh@uunet.co.za, swb@grasslake.net, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ucd-snmp Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005131606530.19135-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20000513165201.D233@parish>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 13 May 2000, Mark Ovens wrote:
> > What I don't understand is why the next generation of package hackers
> > (and I salute anyone intrepid enough to go hacking on that evil code)
> > hasn't just *extended* the current feature set, as is the Unix Way, to
> > cover the "wildcard" case rather than creating yet another pkg_foo
> > command to remember the name of.
NetBSD have done this, I believe.
> BTW, why isn't porteasy in the ports, or even the base system, yet?
Because no-one has submitted it as a port? (hint, hint)
Kris
----
In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
-- Charles Forsythe <forsythe@alum.mit.edu>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0005131606530.19135-100000>