From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Aug  2 14:41:50 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA15848
          for current-outgoing; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 14:41:50 -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 OAA15842
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 14:41:47 -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 OAA16424; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 14:40:50 -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 22:14:02 BST."
             <E0wulUw-00009C-00@genghis.eng.demon.net> 
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 14:40:50 -0700
Message-ID: <16420.870558050@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> I'm not entirely sure that it's going to be as simple as a set
> of Makefile diffs though :(  For example, if one considers the
> approach of a FreeBSD-base + FreeBSD-approved-packages system, then
> substantial changes would have to be made to the entire source tree.

Exactly, which is part of what makes it such a difficult subject to
wrestle with. :-(

I'm all in favor of better mechanisms for dealing with this, don't get
me wrong, I just think it's far far easier to say "we need mechanism x"
than it is to define and implement mechanism x. :-)

					Jordan