From owner-freebsd-ports  Thu Oct  8 01:02:12 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA15874
          for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 01:02:12 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from smaug.fh-regensburg.de (smaug.fh-regensburg.de [194.95.108.11])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA15735;
          Thu, 8 Oct 1998 01:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from agc@smaug.fh-regensburg.de)
Received: (from agc@localhost)
	by smaug.fh-regensburg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA11901;
	Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:01:32 +0200 (MEST)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 10:01:32 +0200 (MEST)
From: Alistair Crooks <agc@smaug.fh-regensburg.de>
Message-Id: <199810080801.KAA11901@smaug.fh-regensburg.de>
To: asami@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: What's the right way to handle old bsd.port.mk?
Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

[Apologies for the lack of In-reply-to header. For some reason, any
mail I send from azcb0@amdahl.com does not show up on the list.]

> * Hmm, now I get why NetBSD has their makefiles as part of the
> * collection rather than part of the base system.
>
> That has its problems too....

Perhaps you could humour me, and outline all these problems?

You see, the NetBSD packages collection has been doing this since
April 14th, 1998, and I have yet to see any problems. In fact, it
is so much easier having the *.mk files in sync with our packages
collection that I wish we'd done it sooner.


Alistair

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message