From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Jan 28 05:40:08 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA17349 for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 05:40:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA17317 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 05:40:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.2/8.9.2) id FAA24405; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 05:40:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 05:40:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199901281340.FAA24405@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami) Subject: Re: ports/9608: Linux Communicator 4.5 Reply-To: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami) Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR ports/9608; it has been noted by GNATS. From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami) To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Subject: Re: ports/9608: Linux Communicator 4.5 Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 05:29:19 -0800 (PST) * >Indeed, we already have 9 Netscape ports in the tree. If there's a * >good reason why this port should be separate, that's fine. If you do * >upgrade linux-netscape4, feel free to change the maintainer (it's me * >at present). I don't think having 9 netscape ports in the tree is reason enough to prevent adding the 10th. That's only a 11% increase. :) * If someone with knowledge and authority wants to make a decision with it * as they please it is fine with me. Does this work for some people? If so, let's add it. Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message