From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 2 23:57:15 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1266E16A4B3; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 23:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (storm.FreeBSD.org.uk [194.242.157.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3BE743FE0; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 23:57:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (Ugrondar@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h936vAB6084108; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 07:57:11 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: (from Ugrondar@localhost)h936vAmM084100; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 07:57:10 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) X-Authentication-Warning: storm.FreeBSD.org.uk: Ugrondar set sender to mark@grondar.org using -f Received: from grondar.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])h936uhYJ037190; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 07:56:43 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) From: Mark Murray Message-Id: <200310030656.h936uhYJ037190@grimreaper.grondar.org> To: Mark Linimon In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 02 Oct 2003 18:45:32 CDT." <200310021845.32098.linimon@lonesome.com> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 07:56:43 +0100 Sender: mark@grondar.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,FROM_NO_LOWER,IN_REP_TO, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES version=2.55 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) cc: cracauer@cons.org cc: des@FreeBSD.org cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org cc: markm@FreeBSD.org cc: olgeni@FreeBSD.org cc: henrik.motakef@web.de cc: sf@slappy.org Subject: Re: RFC: add new virtual category "lisp" to ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 06:57:15 -0000 Mark Linimon writes: > With some recent new port additions, there are now nearly 3 dozen > ports that could fit into a "lisp" category. That's about the same number > as we have in the "scheme" category, so one supposes if we have the > one, we ought to have the other. Looks good to me! M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH