From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 8 01:47:31 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EAB7ED0 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 01:47:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rsimmons0@gmail.com) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D3C1A72 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 01:47:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id u10so5264220lbi.31 for ; Sun, 07 Apr 2013 18:47:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=hbB/zXB2yI0ftI8+nTOuv2WQSd/aTPfxX8GwI5uY/G4=; b=bRpXdBEr7UkcsLWZsPVnKl0NJDfv1GPRtnGPn4KHu4ezJwe0YkaAdfPqgiJb1GrKjv CxZjyroqZdzPIZ6fLHb9lVe0kh3XD4AiSF2I0wK/CbAtmY3MpoqIjUvgHoiu8xr+NWwr VmBf1rHYHwwZ7Lb78mCEK2VaLwPFZ/KK6rcScK2O7NozyxCqbGcM/8ThIiSoD7PQTaNw SPdRO75VeoQnpskEbN/eld38VnMxs0qhOKuJP+LeOVpe9jP2JpuJuZ4zHqdBsX8aXRWH 2VRI8ix1sNJV8M/+qlsb0cFerA3r3DC3bjnsyl+jw/V2gsD88twuGZ7ZNnijMp7f55Kr Ku2Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.135.194 with SMTP id pu2mr1134665lbb.90.1365385643621; Sun, 07 Apr 2013 18:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.4.4 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 18:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:47:23 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Growing list of required(ish) ports From: Robert Simmons To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 01:47:31 -0000 Are there plans to get the following ports moved into HEAD? 1) ports-mgmt/pkg 2) ports-mgmt/dialog4ports 3) ports-mgmt/portaudit 4) ports-mgmt/portmaster It seems to me like these belong in the base system. Also, is there a reason why dialog4ports's functionality wasn't added to dialog(1) as a switch?