From owner-freebsd-ports Fri May 8 15:45:05 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA01179 for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 15:45:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from localhost.my.domain (ppp6466.on.bellglobal.com [206.172.208.58]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA01096 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 15:44:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ac199@hwcn.org) Received: from localhost (tim@localhost) by localhost.my.domain (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA01125; Fri, 8 May 1998 18:21:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from ac199@hwcn.org) X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.my.domain: tim owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 18:21:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek X-Sender: tim@localhost Reply-To: ac199@hwcn.org To: Thomas Gellekum cc: ac199@hwcn.org, rssh@cki.ipri.kiev.ua, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/3991 In-Reply-To: <87hg311eus.fsf@ghpc6.ihf.rwth-aachen.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 8 May 1998, Thomas Gellekum wrote: > > Are these numerous enough to be worthy of a virtual category > > (like kde)? > > I guess one can argue this. I didn't mind either way so I left the > offix category in. Actually, I was suggesting that they were, yes, numerous enough to be worthy of a virtual category. Somehow my eyes must not have seen that they did in fact have a virtual category "offix". Urk. Sorry! :) -- This .sig is not innovative, witty, or profund. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message