From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Oct 31 10:46:53 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA27242 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:46:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from covina.lightside.com (covina.lightside.com [207.67.176.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA27237 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:46:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (jehamby@localhost) by covina.lightside.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA18145; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:45:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:45:45 -0800 (PST) From: Jake Hamby To: Richard Wackerbarth cc: terry@lambert.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: POSIX Conformance (Unanswered in "questions" so I forwarded...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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