From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Dec 5 19:04:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA09553 for ports-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 19:04:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA09535; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 19:04:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA16952; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 19:04:21 -0800 (PST) To: Philippe Regnauld cc: Terry Lambert , ports@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 3.0 -release ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 05 Dec 1997 23:38:16 +0100." <19971205233816.15333@deepo.prosa.dk> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 19:04:20 -0800 Message-ID: <16948.881377460@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > I like this. I think that there should be coordination with the > > OpenBSD and NetBSD folks to make sure they are usable "out of the box" > > for them as well. It could become simply "The BSD ports collection". > > YES! I definitely agree with this idea -- since OpenBSD already > uses the ports... Having a common set of CD's / archives that This would be nice, but I'd also have to *test* these packages on those platforms or at least cooperate closely with someone from each camp to do so, and frankly that's a lot more extra work than I feel comfortable signing up for. Again, it "would be nice", I'm not disputing that, I'm simply saying that if we don't keep our goalset small, at least for the first couple of iterations of this, then we won't get it done for any of the *BSDs (including FreeBSD). Jordan