From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed May 22 22:51:44 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id WAA19476
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 22:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA19470;
          Wed, 22 May 1996 22:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.7.5/8.6.6) with SMTP id XAA07031; Wed, 22 May 1996 23:51:34 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <199605230551.XAA07031@rover.village.org>
To: Jeffrey Hsu <hsu@freefall.freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: src/gnu 
Cc: hackers@freefall.freebsd.org
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 22 May 1996 16:13:59 PDT
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 23:51:34 -0600
From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

:   > Apart from that, wouldn't it make more sense to use the "ports" paradigm
:   > on them instead of checking in all the files ?  In theory we should be
:   > running pretty much footool-9.3.tar.gz with a few patches, so why not
:   > speed up our CVS-tree by actually not checking in the thousands of files
: 
: I agree with Poul.  The bmake paradigm for gcc just isn't working.
: If the ports model fits better, we should use that instead.

One thing to consider is that the gnu software has a habbit of
disappearing off the FTP sites after a while.  This would force an
ungrade or leave some people out in the cold should the FSF produce a
series of bad releases of a certain program.

Warner