From owner-freebsd-ports  Wed Apr  9 21:18:35 1997
Return-Path: <owner-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA12636
          for ports-outgoing; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 21:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA12631;
          Wed, 9 Apr 1997 21:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rover.village.org [127.0.0.1] 
	by rover.village.org with esmtp (Exim 1.60 #1)
	id 0wFBJW-0001Mw-00; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 22:18:22 -0600
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Subject: Re: What http://www.freebsd.org/ports *should* look like. :-) 
Cc: ports@freebsd.org, www@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 05 Apr 1997 16:46:02 PST."
		<199704060046.QAA02661@time.cdrom.com> 
References: <199704060046.QAA02661@time.cdrom.com>  
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 22:18:20 -0600
From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Message-Id: <E0wFBJW-0001Mw-00@rover.village.org>
Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In message <199704060046.QAA02661@time.cdrom.com> "Jordan K. Hubbard" writes:
: http://hpux.cs.utah.edu/
: John Fieber pointed me at this today and I'm quite impressed.  If
: we needed a model to aspire to, we need look no further than this
: one. :-)

This is cool.  I think that some of the stuff that the ports are doing
are definitely better, but some things are a little worse.  The reason
that I'm replying today was because I couldn't get to the system until
now.

Warner