Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 02:36:53 +0200 From: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@FreeBSD.org> To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, n1epo4tl@ibmmail.com Subject: Re: satan Message-ID: <199605170036.CAA12108@vector.jhs.no_domain> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 May 1996 03:20:37 PDT." <199605141020.DAA12405@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Reference: > From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) > Subject: Re: satan > Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 03:20:37 -0700 (PDT) > Message-id: <199605141020.DAA12405@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> > > * As memory serves, there is a port but `soemeone in charge' ;-) > * declined to import what was offered (on philosophical rather than technica - l > * grounds, ... this was maybe 6 months ago). > > The satan port was uploaded to wcarchive's incoming and had > disappeared before the porter sent mail asking "why didn't my port get > in?" a few weeks later. I never heard back from the porter since. > > As far as I know, there has never been any philosophical discussion > about whether the port is suitable or not. At least not in -ports (I > don't read all the lists), which is the only place to have an > "official" discussion of that sort. Oh, I had thought you & others had expressed opinions on Satan, acceptability for/against (not WRT port quality), then it was finally not imported, .... anyway, If someone such as Stuart were to submit a Satan port, is it acceptable (not WRT port quality), I mean in general ? Julian -- Julian H. Stacey jhs@freebsd.org http://www.freebsd.org/~jhs/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605170036.CAA12108>