From owner-freebsd-hubs  Fri Dec 15 01:12:11 1995
Return-Path: owner-hubs
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id BAA06316
          for hubs-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 1995 01:12:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA06281
          for <hubs@freebsd.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 1995 01:11:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.7.3/8.6.9) id BAA02243; Fri, 15 Dec 1995 01:11:53 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 01:11:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199512150911.BAA02243@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: hubs@freebsd.org
Subject: 2.1R/ports and ports-2.1 on ftp.freebsd.org
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-hubs@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

I swapped the directory and links, because I realized that it's
impossible to "get ports-2.1.tar.gz" from the upper level due to the
.notar file and "get ports.tar.gz" inside 2.1R would return a tarfile
consisting of a single symbolic link. ;)

Thus, what used to look like this:

  ports-2.1          (directory)
  2.1.0-RELEASE/ports -> ../ports-2.1

now looks like this:

  ports -> 2.1.0-RELEASE/ports
  2.1.0-RELEASE/ports   (directory)

People on the mirror sites may want to avoid copying the files over by 
making the abovementioned changes by hand.

I'm reluctant to move the packages-2.1 because it is huge, although
that is the only one that does not fit in the picture now.  What do
you guys think?  Do you think it will be ok if we all coordinate the
change and do it together?  (I.e., I change it on ftp.freebsd.org,
mirror site admins change them on the mirror sites, at the same time,
so there won't be excessive file transfers.)

Satoshi