From owner-freebsd-current Sat Aug 2 13:39:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA12769 for current-outgoing; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 13:39:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA12764 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 13:39:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA16096; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 13:38:09 -0700 (PDT) To: ade@demon.net cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 02 Aug 1997 20:55:03 BST." Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 13:38:09 -0700 Message-ID: <16092.870554289@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk [Directed only to -current; 3 mailing lists is too many] > Surely this would depend on how far things "bite the dust". > Personally, I don't think it would be unreasonable to have a > situation where the base system is made up of two distinct, but > heavily inter-related parts, namely that chunk of the current core > system that is definitely needed to run any kind of system at all, > and other parts which aren't necessarily required, but which are > stamped with a kind of "seal of approval" for use with FreeBSD. That option's already been discussed to death. ;-) The question is how to do this effectively, not in the concept. The concept is the easy part. ;) Jordan