From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Jul 1 20:38:15 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from smtp11.bellglobal.com (smtp11.bellglobal.com [204.101.251.53]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0489014EE4 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 20:38:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hoek@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost.nowhere (Hamilton-ppp44824.sympatico.ca [206.172.76.17]) by smtp11.bellglobal.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA20973; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 23:40:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from tim@localhost) by localhost.nowhere (8.9.3/8.9.1) id XAA58271; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 23:38:53 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from tim) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 23:38:52 -0400 From: Tim Vanderhoek To: Doug Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, nik@nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: ports/12463: Update: Fvwm2 to 2.2.2 Message-ID: <19990701233852.A56449@mad> References: <19990701182508.A31961@mad> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95i In-Reply-To: ; from Doug on Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 03:32:45PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, Jul 01, 1999 at 03:32:45PM -0700, Doug wrote: > > they are all the same," which I disagree with (in this instance) purely on > spec. If I have missed some other part of your argument, my apologies. I haven't really made any argument. I'm just fishing for opinions at the moment, and trying to make sure that your stated opinion is really the one you want. :) -- This is my .signature which gets appended to the end of my messages. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message