From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Aug  3 05:12:26 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA21685
          for current-outgoing; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 05:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.8])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA21680
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 05:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id HAA15606; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 07:11:48 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from sjx-ca30-16.ix.netcom.com(204.31.235.176) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id sma015489; Sun Aug  3 07:11:14 1997
Received: (from asami@localhost) by blimp.mimi.com (8.8.6/8.6.9) id FAA01496; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 05:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 05:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199708031211.FAA01496@blimp.mimi.com>
To: davidn@unique.usn.blaze.net.au
CC: current@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: <199708022133.HAA14498@unique.usn.blaze.net.au> (message from David Nugent on Sun, 03 Aug 1997 07:33:39 +1000)
Subject: Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

 * From: David Nugent <davidn@unique.usn.blaze.net.au>

This post contains most of what I wanted to say, so let me just quote
the relevant points and add a useless "me too !" message to the
debate. :)

 * I don't care one way or another about "bloat". It is irrelevent
 * to the point I was making.

Me too.  I have gobs of disk space (I just got a 9GB drive as a
replacement as a 4GB drive...gotta love those folks at Quantum :).
What I'm concerned is consistency, manageability, timeliness, etc.

 * The ports system, in spite of its faults and shortfalls, *works*,
 * and works extremely well, mainly because of the efforts of porters
 * and Satoshi's management. But I hardly need to point this out to

You can also include Jordan for coming up with the idea and
implementing it first.  (And as usual, when Americans make something,
a Japanese (me) comes in to improve the product. :)

 * 							 That
 * point of view misses the issue entirely. tcl is a major headache
 * in terms of multiple version operability. 

Yes.  I should have yelled louder when tcl75 went in -- if I haven't
read Prof. Ousterhout's release notes to tcl74/tk40 that he "made some 
mistakes, and wanted to correct them before too late -- tk40 is that
correction" (paraphrased) and believed that that is the last time he
would say that, I would have.

Satoshi