Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 12:04:18 -0500 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-ports-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RfD] Merging fortune ports Message-ID: <4461qirv8t.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> In-Reply-To: <20131221142710.GA50067@spectrum.skysmurf.nl> (A. J. van Werven's message of "Sat, 21 Dec 2013 15:27:10 %2B0100") References: <20131221142710.GA50067@spectrum.skysmurf.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven" <freebsd@skysmurf.nl> writes: > I happened to notice that there are already several misc/fortune* ports > and it takes only the slightest bit of imagination to come up with several > more. Hell, I alone can think of at least a dozen or so. However, we > probably don't want to fill the ports tree with a whole bunch of ports > that are pretty much the same except for the one or two files they > install. Moreover, who is to say which fortune ports get accepted and > which don't? This got me thinking: > > Would it be a good idea to merge all fortune* ports into one and use the > OPTIONS framework to let the user select which cookie jar(s) they wish to > install? That would be a fine idea, as long as it doesn't raise any license problems. We don't actually consider or track licenses on any fortune files or ports. I don't think that's a problem at the moment, but it's very difficult to be positive, especially with regard to collection copyrights. To be honest, I was surprised at how *few* fortune files we have in ports. I maintain three or four "jars" for my own use, and expected that at least *some* people would have shared theirs.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4461qirv8t.fsf>