From owner-freebsd-stable Sat May 13 16: 8: 3 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 876BF37B61D; Sat, 13 May 2000 16:07:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA22643; Sat, 13 May 2000 16:07:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 16:07:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: Mark Ovens Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group , Patrick Seal , "Chad R. Larson" , sheldonh@uunet.co.za, swb@grasslake.net, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ucd-snmp In-Reply-To: <20000513165201.D233@parish> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message