From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 1 20:33:43 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCAF016A420 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 20:33:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd-current-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: from mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A23B43D46 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 20:33:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd-current-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: (qmail 9305 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2006 20:33:42 -0000 Received: from dsl092-078-145.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO be-well.ilk.org) ([66.92.78.145]) (envelope-sender ) by mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 1 Mar 2006 20:33:42 -0000 Received: by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix, from userid 1147) id 4F6CD28449; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 15:33:41 -0500 (EST) Sender: lowell@be-well.ilk.org To: arch@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org References: <20060301170306.GZ55746@elvis.mu.org> <4405F673.8060907@samsco.org> From: Lowell Gilbert Date: 01 Mar 2006 15:33:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4405F673.8060907@samsco.org> Message-ID: <44mzg9ucpm.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Lines: 17 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Importing csup into base X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 20:33:43 -0000 Scott Long writes: > Maxime Henrion wrote: > > Hey all, > > I have released a new snapshot of csup a few minutes ago, > > [...] > > > - Executes (shell commands sent by the server, even more rarely > > used), > > Are you joking? Are you asking whether he's joking about (1) the idea of ever implementing it, (2) the fact that he hasn't done it yet, or (3) the idea that it's rarely used? All of those sound reasonable to me...