From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Sep  4 11:12:29 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 76B3216A4CE
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Sat,  4 Sep 2004 11:12:29 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
	[128.131.111.2])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23CBE43D53
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Sat,  4 Sep 2004 11:12:29 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com)
Received: from [128.131.111.60] (acrux [128.131.111.60])
	by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9477C1378A; Sat,  4 Sep 2004 13:12:27 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 13:12:30 +0200 (CEST)
From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>
To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com>
In-Reply-To: <1094149616.740.31.camel@gyros>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.61.0409041311480.99539@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.61.0409021258000.99539@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
 <1094149616.740.31.camel@gyros>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
cc: ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: When (not) to enter a repo-copy in ports/MOVED
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 11:12:29 -0000

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> No.  You only need a MOVED entry if one port is being removed, or if
> users of one port should move to using another port for the same
> functionality.  Since both ports are going to coexist, you can forgo a
> MOVED entry.

Okay, thanks for the clarification!  Mark also responded and said he'll
have a look at clarifying the documentation.

Gerald
-- 
Gerald Pfeifer (Jerry)   gerald@pfeifer.com   http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/