Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 10:59:47 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: Adam <bsdx@looksharp.net>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: a better idea for package dependencies Message-ID: <20000509105947.A65299@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200005091736.NAA08092@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>; from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu on Tue, May 09, 2000 at 01:36:03PM -0400 References: <20000509075209.D6350@dragon.nuxi.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005091320490.11996-100000@turtle.looksharp.net> <20000509102912.D28677@dragon.nuxi.com> <200005091736.NAA08092@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 09, 2000 at 01:36:03PM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote: > Not necessarily, and certainly not in the very beginning. I remember > a number of times seeing a third-party software vendor who provided > their product in that form, just as many third-party vendors now ship > *.rpm files (and always shipped SCO and Solaris ``packages''). Yes. But with the Ports Collection being the biggest consumer of pkg_*, there is more pkg_* clue on ports@freebsd.org than current@freebsd.org. -- -- David (obrien@NUXI.com) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000509105947.A65299>