From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Apr 7 12:40: 6 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@hub.freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A05D37B424 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:40:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f37Je2r32953; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:40:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:40:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200104071940.f37Je2r32953@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Will Andrews Subject: Re: ports/26297: New port: devel/florist Reply-To: Will Andrews Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR ports/26297; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Will Andrews To: Thomas Quinot Cc: FreeBSD GNATS DB Subject: Re: ports/26297: New port: devel/florist Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:39:01 -0500 --V1B6tgkYnQOXc079 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 04:39:17PM +0200, Thomas Quinot wrote: > Could you be a little more specific as to why you deem the submitted > port to be inappropriate? Because the port includes a HUGE patch. I need to be convinced that you can't get rid of this patch by having it merged into the distribution itself. --=20 wca P.S. Please keep GNATS on the line, so stuff like this gets recorded in the audit trail. --V1B6tgkYnQOXc079 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6z2zUF47idPgWcsURAqPOAJ4sm4E1zQ/g/qzpcAk8jdfVtQsVKgCfTbQc U48iLiZjMV2GqH6vl4Spkc0= =oESv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --V1B6tgkYnQOXc079-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message