Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:24:29 +0100 From: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: "cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org" <cvs-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: REINPLACE vs. perl -i; and why ports are too complex for their own good Message-ID: <200402122224.33190.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <20040212122617.T88889@qbhto.arg> References: <200402110716.i1B7GH9D017803@repoman.freebsd.org> <xzplln8k3fp.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20040212122617.T88889@qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Boundary-02=_Q8+KAC00SHTYpEe Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday 12 February 2004 21:41, Doug Barton wrote: > Now, years later, we are STILL arguing about this topic, And the argument has become even more ridiculous. Please, no bikeshedding o= ver=20 this one again, _please_. I find the whole "oh my god, ports don't do stuff= =20 on $ancient_version_of_freebsd" whine to be totally pointless. Ports is NOT= =20 the base-system, ports are not and cannot be supposed to meet any=20 stable-branch criteria. =2D-=20 ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | lofi@freebsd.org (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org --Boundary-02=_Q8+KAC00SHTYpEe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBAK+8QXhc68WspdLARAsJYAJ4yUEhLhl9MczRbUTx+CAe4kNcbuACfU4xw Qklj2MWhXzcVZ5vH9EtLaB0= =sU2V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_Q8+KAC00SHTYpEe--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200402122224.33190.michaelnottebrock>