Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 23:48:20 -0800 From: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: phk@ref.tfs.com, CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com, bde@freebsd.org, cvs-ports@freefall.cdrom.com, joerg@freefall.cdrom.com, nate@trout.sri.MT.net Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/bcc - Imported sources Message-ID: <199503270748.XAA03696@precipice.Shockwave.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Mar 1995 17:26:42 %2B1000." <199503270726.RAA11348@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
My question is more philisophical... I think it's fantastic that we have access to bcc, in fact, you have made my week with this announcement, but my question is: Why do we have to have -everything- in /src? There are some parts of the system that are so obscure that I question the need to be able to rebuild them from source code with the default distribution (e.g. the bootselect code). My other objection to /src is we don't have a good way of tracking software owned by other folks in /src. Just look at the gnu directory. :-( I can think of many things that I think only FreeBSD developers care about, and most most people would rather not have as part of the base distribution, that I'd like to see moved to ports (watch me win friends with this message, since almost everything mentioned has been written by FreeBSD core folks): bcc ctm dmenu file2c
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199503270748.XAA03696>