From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 14 00:58:40 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D4E3A29; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 00:58:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:2:6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7050F110D; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 00:58:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ppp121-45-108-103.lns20.adl6.internode.on.net (HELO leader.local) ([121.45.108.103]) by ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2013 11:28:36 +1030 Message-ID: <52ABAD38.9080502@ShaneWare.Biz> Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:28:32 +1030 From: Shane Ambler User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven" , John Baldwin Subject: Re: BETA4: fortune -o gone? References: <20131205090208.4cdba36b@X220.ovitrap.com> <52A2AF39.7090006@ShaneWare.Biz> <52A2CC9F.7040306@andyit.com.au> <201312131356.32490.jhb@freebsd.org> <20131213211638.GA85021@spectrum.skysmurf.nl> In-Reply-To: <20131213211638.GA85021@spectrum.skysmurf.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Andy Farkas X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 00:58:40 -0000 On 14/12/2013 07:46, A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > >> Not all people have the same standards regarding freedom of speech and >> all that. > > I for one have become quite aware of that in recent years ;-) > >> I certainly hoped that someone would pick up the file and place it in >> ports. I would recommend the fortunes-o.real file from rev 228909. > > I already created such a port and submitted a PR. In fact, I have some > improvements to the Makefile lined up but I probably can't submit those > while the port creation PR hasn't been processed yet. Is there any > particular reason why you'd recommend that particular revision of the > fortune file? It would appear that revision removed duplicates and fixed typos - the next removed political propaganda then it was deleted.