Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 15:49:52 -0500 From: Diane Bruce <db@db.net> To: "A. Wilcox" <AWilcox@Wilcox-Tech.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The future of fortune(6) Message-ID: <20171124204952.GA1497@night.db.net> In-Reply-To: <5A1883CA.3090409@Wilcox-Tech.com> References: <20171123152615.GA35498@rdtc.ru> <201711241647.vAOGlgxu071487@fire.js.berklix.net> <CAJ-Vmo=puH=3%2B5HbKop3%2BWzyG35idZa-CMFSMJmfNmRyG7zFCw@mail.gmail.com> <5A1883CA.3090409@Wilcox-Tech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 02:40:42PM -0600, A. Wilcox wrote:
> On 24/11/17 13:19, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > Pardon me, but it's 2017 and the 4.3BSD system index isn't an immutable bible.
> >
> > As a general push to packaging things in general, turning fortune into
> > a package seems like some low hanging fruit.
> >
> >
> >
> > -adrian
>
>
> This, so much this. Why is it so controversial to put the thing in a
> package? Why do people want so badly to just remove it? Why wasn't it
> discussed about putting it in a package?
Let's bring back badblocks too while we are at it.
>
> It seems like if, instead of *deleting* things, they were just moved to
> packages, probably nobody would have complained. Or at least, it would
> have been fewer people (I wouldn't have), and the complaints would have
> been lighter ("you could have told me" vs "how dare you").
>
> Live and learn. And please, package it. ALL of it.
Yes. Please.
>
> --arw
>
> --
> A. Wilcox (awilfox)
> Open-source programmer (C, C++, Python)
> https://code.foxkit.us/u/awilfox/
>
Diane Bruce
--
- db@FreeBSD.org db@db.net http://www.db.net/~db
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20171124204952.GA1497>