Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:45:45 -0800 (PST) From: Jake Hamby <jehamby@lightside.com> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: terry@lambert.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: POSIX Conformance (Unanswered in "questions" so I forwarded...) Message-ID: <Pine.AUX.3.94.961031104450.17831A-100000@covina.lightside.com> In-Reply-To: <l03010602ae9e82698e03@[204.69.236.50]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > >TET ... so there is no reason not to make a port out of it, as Terry > >suggests. > > Perhaps I don't understand. Are you suggesting that it be added to the > "contrib" tree? > > If you need to change as much as one line in the makefile, I will argue > that it should be placed into "ports" or somewhere higher in the hiearchy. > > In fact, I can see a value in having "out-of-the-box" programs listed in a > special "ports" section just to propogate the knowledge that they work(ed). I think you misread me. I meant that TET SHOULD be placed into the ports collection, as Terry suggested. -- Jake
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.AUX.3.94.961031104450.17831A-100000>