From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Nov 26 15:29:29 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA03095
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 14:33:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ami.tom.computerworks.net (AMI.RES.CMU.EDU [128.2.95.1])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA03075
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 14:33:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bonkers.taronga.com by ami.tom.computerworks.net with smtp
	(Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0vSW4M-0021aZC; Tue, 26 Nov 96 17:33 EST
Received: (from peter@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id QAA22646; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 16:30:12 -0600
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Message-Id: <199611262230.QAA22646@bonkers.taronga.com>
Subject: Re: Replacing sendmail
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 16:30:11 -0600 (CST)
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <13578.849035957@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Nov 26, 96 11:19:17 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> I'd have no problem with a generic pkg_control utility which sat on
> top of a series of more specifically intelligent scripts, though I
> think that perhaps we should consider whether it's really "packages"
> we're controlling or services since in, 2 of the examples we've
> already cited, the lines are somewhat blurred between controlling
> packages and in-built parts of FreeBSD.

I agree. The name "package" is mnemonically appropriate but it doesn't
match the terminology already established in the existing system.

What's another word for Roget?