Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 01:51:31 -0700 From: "Crist J. Clark" <cristjc@earthlink.net> To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net> Cc: cjclark@alum.mit.edu, Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca>, ijliao@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/29137: Brand New Tripwire-2.3.1 Port (fwd) Message-ID: <20010830015131.J9807@blossom.cjclark.org> In-Reply-To: <96658.999160069@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za>; from sheldonh@starjuice.net on Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 10:27:49AM %2B0200 References: <20010829230711.H9807@blossom.cjclark.org> <96658.999160069@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 10:27:49AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:07:12 MST, "Crist J. Clark" wrote: > > > As long as the maintainers are still willing to keep them up, I don't > > see any reason to remove them. Of course, if one of the maintainers > > (you for example) no longer wish to support one, unless someone else > > speaks up to support it, it should go. > > I think you're approaching this from the wrong angle. The default > should be to update existing ports rather than spawn new ones. Special > considerations may motivate you to add new ports (e.g. a new version of > a package with an incompatible configuration file syntax), but that > should never be the default. But weren't you the one who posted the reasons, and they are valid reasons, why there are different ports? -- Crist J. Clark cjclark@alum.mit.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010830015131.J9807>