From owner-freebsd-ports  Thu Nov 16 15:30:23 1995
Return-Path: owner-ports
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id PAA23095
          for ports-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 1995 15:30:23 -0800
Received: from forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU (forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.33.75])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA23090
          for <ports@FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 1995 15:30:19 -0800
Received: (from asami@localhost) by forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.9) id PAA12042; Thu, 16 Nov 1995 15:28:54 -0800
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 15:28:54 -0800
Message-Id: <199511162328.PAA12042@forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
To: scott@statsci.com
CC: jmz@cabri.obs-besancon.fr, ports@FreeBSD.org
In-reply-to: <199511162032.MAA07876@block.statsci.com> (message from Scott Blachowicz on Thu, 16 Nov 1995 12:32:33 -0800)
Subject: Re: Growth of the ports tree
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-ports@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

 * ...then have something that approaches
 * 
 *      0 ports-2.3
 * 
 * after all the world goes FreeBSD and is wired together on nice fast
 * networks? :-))

Well, we'll still need the packaging files, so the ports will never
die! :)

By the way, here's another one....

>> for i in 2.0 2.0.5 2.1; do echo -n "ports-$i:        "; \
  echo ports-$i/*/*/Makefile | wc -w; done
ports-2.0:           201
ports-2.0.5:         313
ports-2.1:           383

Jean-Marc, want to extrapolate? :)

Satoshi