From owner-freebsd-ports  Wed Nov  8 16:44:44 1995
Return-Path: owner-ports
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id QAA02411
          for ports-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 16:44:44 -0800
Received: from forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU (forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.33.75])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA02404
          for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 16:44:41 -0800
Received: (from asami@localhost) by forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.9) id QAA00337; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 16:44:32 -0800
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 16:44:32 -0800
Message-Id: <199511090044.QAA00337@forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
To: pst@shockwave.com
CC: hsu@cs.hut.fi, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: <199511090020.QAA10452@precipice.shockwave.com> (message from Paul Traina on Wed, 08 Nov 1995 16:20:55 -0800)
Subject: Re: port of strace?
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

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

Hey, that's what I meant. :)

 * 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.

Certainly, I have been rejecting (well not exactly, I fix them the
best I can and/or ask the submitters to clean them up) many ports
because they are not done according to the guidelines, but I have
never questioned the usefulness of the program itself....

Satoshi