From owner-freebsd-ports Mon May 31 22:28:23 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from pop3-3.enteract.com (pop3-3.enteract.com [207.229.143.32]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8F48A1521A for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 22:28:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: (qmail 57848 invoked from network); 1 Jun 1999 05:28:11 -0000 Received: from shell-3.enteract.com (dscheidt@207.229.143.42) by pop3-3.enteract.com with SMTP; 1 Jun 1999 05:28:11 -0000 Received: from localhost (dscheidt@localhost) by shell-3.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id AAA06059; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 00:28:11 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) X-Authentication-Warning: shell-3.enteract.com: dscheidt owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 00:28:11 -0500 (CDT) From: David Scheidt To: Eivind Eklund Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: a two-level port system? (fwd) In-Reply-To: <19990601071242.A58405@bitbox.follo.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org (CCs snipped) On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Eivind Eklund wrote: > (3) Hit jkh with a baseball bat until he stops refusing to use soft > updates on the boot floppy during install (due to "making a point") What exactly is the point? We clearly wouldn't be distributing a kernel withoutthe whole sources, so I wouldn't think we would be violating the license. In any event, the -CURRENT /usr/src/sys/ufs/ffs/README.softupdates has a change sugesting that one do something likea "tunefs -n enable /usr " -STABlE still says tunefs -n enable /dev/rsd0s1d. Any reason for this? David To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message