From owner-freebsd-ports  Tue Jan 23 11:58:53 1996
Return-Path: owner-ports
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA11864
          for ports-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 11:58:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crh.cl.msu.edu (crh.cl.msu.edu [35.8.1.24])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA11855
          for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 11:58:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from henrich@localhost) by crh.cl.msu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA08294 for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 14:58:09 -0500
From: Charles Henrich <henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu>
Message-Id: <199601231958.OAA08294@crh.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: WARNING: proposed change to samba port
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 14:58:09 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8a]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com> writes:

>  From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de>
>  Subject: Re: WARNING: proposed change to samba port
>
>  I'm all for it!

>OK, most folks are for it, one objection.  I said I wouldn't do it if there
>were any objections, however, to split a fine hair, I could always give you
>the patch file and you could apply it. :-)

>It would be best to gather rough consensus among the users first.
>Feel free to twist arms.

Im against, I like significant system packages to live in their own tree (e.g.
/usr/X11R6)

-Crh

    Charles Henrich     Michigan State University     henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu

                     http://rs560.msu.edu/~henrich/