On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 17:08:38 +0200 Gary Jennejohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mentioned:
> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:26:12 +0200 > Pav Lucistnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Stanislav Sedov p____e v st 09. 04. 2008 v 17:22 +0400: > > > > > > I don't know. I just marked the port BROKEN :) > > > > > > > > > > Ok, portmgr don't know... (/me is making a note in his notebook) > > > :-) > > > > > > pav-the-mark-broken-monster > > > > That's me, when I take a break from being > > pav-the-mailforwarding-party-crasher :) > > > > As for the simulavr port, I don't have a strong preference for it moving > > to emulators or staying where it's now. > > > > Just my 2 (Euro)cents. Considering that it's been in devel for the > last 5-1/2 years it seems a littel extreme to move it to emulation for > purely aesthetic reasons. > It's not aesthetic but consistency reason. We have a strong policy to put in devel only ports that can't be clearly associated with other categories. -- Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
