Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 04:27:00 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: sos@FreeBSD.org, gpalmer@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org, peter@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: src/gnu Message-ID: <3393.832850820@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 May 1996 13:00:25 %2B0930." <199605230330.NAA06882@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> If it's kept as a 'port' rather than mutilated and stuffed into the source > tree, it should _theoretically_ be easier to get the FSF people to accept > patches to it. I think the idea has a lot of merit. One plus is that with the ports collection model (and it's funny that I never thought of anything outside of /usr/ports including bsd.port.mk before, but thinking about it now it makes perfect sense :-), all the patches will always be broken out in ONE location and it becomes a very simple exercise to work with the FSF until your patches directory goes away - what other metric could be simpler? I'm not sure that having gcc bmake'd has ever bought us much anyway. Same goes for groff, for that matter. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3393.832850820>