From owner-freebsd-ports  Thu Feb 22 21: 9: 7 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (adsl-64-165-226-53.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [64.165.226.53])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489A437B4EC
	for <ports@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:09:05 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org)
Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id B3C1866C34; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:09:04 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:09:04 -0800
From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
To: ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Cc: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com>
Subject: Re: Move pkg-comment into pkg-descr (was Re: [wiz@netbsd.org: CVS commit: pkgsrc])
Message-ID: <20010222210903.A14215@mollari.cthul.hu>
References: <4.3.2.20010217221153.02e535c0@207.227.119.2> <20010217193732.A32688@mollari.cthul.hu> <4.3.2.20010217221153.02e535c0@207.227.119.2> <4.3.2.20010219051829.02829ae0@207.227.119.2> <3ddaquj0.fsf@gits.dyndns.org> <20010219154827.A50747@hamlet.nectar.com> <20010221122042.B97948@dragon.nuxi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="RnlQjJ0d97Da+TV1"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20010221122042.B97948@dragon.nuxi.com>; from TrimYourCc@NUXI.com on Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 12:20:42PM -0800
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org


--RnlQjJ0d97Da+TV1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 12:20:42PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:48:27PM -0600, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
> > My US$0.02:  I think removing the 1-line pkg-comment file would be=20
> > wonderful.
>=20
> VERY wonderful!
>=20
> > We should use instead the first line of pkg-descr.  This means, of
> > course, that almost all pkg-descr files would have to be updated.
>=20
> I also agree with this.  BUT, I think before picking this method, we
> should see if the NetBSD guys will go along with it.  If not, then I
> think we should put the comment in the Makefile as they do.

Well...I don't know how amenable they'd be to making another tree
sweep considering they just did one - the cost is probably too high to
justify it.

Kris

--RnlQjJ0d97Da+TV1
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE6lfBvWry0BWjoQKURAvFYAJ4+nfjnBrH02MK2y1sTKHJ52BOPNACcD9Vd
zrVV7VJ5zPEawbvgV07z1xI=
=auzO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--RnlQjJ0d97Da+TV1--

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message