From owner-freebsd-ports  Sat Aug 19 04:48:57 1995
Return-Path: ports-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id EAA00521
          for ports-outgoing; Sat, 19 Aug 1995 04:48:57 -0700
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181])
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id EAA00515
          for <ports@freebsd.org>; Sat, 19 Aug 1995 04:48:55 -0700
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.9) id EAA26529; Sat, 19 Aug 1995 04:48:43 -0700
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 04:48:43 -0700
Message-Id: <199508191148.EAA26529@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: gary@palmer.demon.co.uk
CC: jhs@vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de, ports@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: <3652.808596066@palmer.demon.co.uk> (message from Gary Palmer on Wed, 16 Aug 1995 19:01:06 +0100)
Subject: Re: pbasic-2.0-950813.tar.gz + pbasic-2.0-950813.src.tar.gz uploaded
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: ports-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

Julian, thanks for the port, I took a look, although I haven't
compiled it yet.

 * Err. freebsd.com? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves here? I didn't
 * know we had a ftp.FreeBSD.COM address :-)

Hehe....I guess he meant freefall's LOCAL_PORTS.

By the way, I haven't received an answer to my question, did you
really really really reeeeeeeeeeally have to make a new tarball?
There was no way to transform the original tarball into a
FreeBSD-compilable version using civilized methods?

If the answer to the above questions are "yes", "no", then that's ok
to put it in LOCAL_PORTS, of course.

 * Functionally, it'll work, but I'd prefer things done slightly
 * differently (like a patch to the main makefile to give it an install
 * rule rather than an install rule at the top level, but that's just a
 * personal preference)

I don't really care, if it's a total new target, I prefer it done in
the toplevel Makefile though.  It's easier to see what it's doing.

 * No doubt Satoshi has a word or two on the layout of the makefile :-)

Yeah...well, it's mostly ok.  The excessive comments after MAINTAINER
should go though, that's not what we want our users to read.  Also,
what is ${LOCAL_}?  Can't we just use ${PREFIX}?

Satoshi