From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Apr 4 09:17:32 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id JAA11612 for ports-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 09:17:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from spirit.cis.uoguelph.ca (spirit.cis.uoguelph.ca [131.104.48.45]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA11573 Thu, 4 Apr 1996 09:17:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from james@localhost) by spirit.cis.uoguelph.ca (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA04824; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 12:17:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 12:17:00 -0500 (EST) From: James FitzGibbon To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" cc: Satoshi Asami , ports@FreeBSD.org, gibbs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: NO_PACKAGE and NO_CDROM In-Reply-To: <6270.828614341@time.cdrom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ports@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > Anyone object to the idea of ports-{foo,bar,...} going away and being > replaced by one ports-all? Does anyone here even sup a partial > ports tree? I know that I never have.. The only thing I can see as an advantage of the ports-* structure is that if one doesn't run X, or doesn't have need for the russian or japanese ports, they can leave them out of the supscan. Other than that, no, I usually grab the whole ports tree every week. -- j. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | James FitzGibbon james@nexis.net | | Integrator, The Nexis Group Voice/Fax : 416 410-0100 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------