From owner-freebsd-ports  Wed Nov  8 16:21:56 1995
Return-Path: owner-ports
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id QAA01167
          for ports-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 16:21:56 -0800
Received: from precipice.shockwave.com (precipice.shockwave.com [171.69.108.33])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA01158
          for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 16:21:48 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by precipice.shockwave.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA10452; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 16:20:57 -0800
Message-Id: <199511090020.QAA10452@precipice.shockwave.com>
To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
cc: hsu@cs.hut.fi, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: port of strace? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 08 Nov 1995 16:00:52 PST."
             <199511090000.QAA00284@forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU> 
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 1995 16:20:55 -0800
From: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com>
Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk


  From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
  Subject: Re: port of strace?
   * Sounds like there is a value add for such a port.  I don't think we'd
   * reject it should it be submitted.
  
  Umm, let me just point out that we've never "reject"ed a port because
  it's "value" is not enough.  There has been a certain member (Paul,
  that's you :) who complains from time to time that a port is not
  worthy (in much less decent language), but that has never been the
  attitude of the whole ports team or the portsmaster (that's me).

Now you're misquoting me.  I never said the port was a <censored>.
I said that the program itself was a <censored> <censored> <censored>. :-)

I actually do think there are valid reasons for rejecting a port or a
program,  even if we disagree on identd as a specific example.