On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 08:47:02PM +0100, Volker wrote: > On 02/14/08 20:17, Brooks Davis wrote: > > APSL is not generally accepted in the base. It may be acceptable in > > certain circumstances, but strong technical justification is generally > > required for inclusion. > > Brooks, > > so better put that into the ports tree?
It could go into ports without issue. If it's functionality people need in the base then perhaps a case could be made, but at a glance it doesn't look like these really qualify. -- Brooks
pgpX2TWsQFNIk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
