ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)
On -10.01.-28163 14:59, Doug Barton wrote: Non sequitur. The large number of ports that we support IS a feature. However, it's also a pretty big maintenance burden. Especially when you consider the number of those ports that are either actually or effectively unmaintained. Support? What support? Can I call someone and have a solution to a problem? Some PRs remain open for years and any attempts to escalate are met with "patches welcome" -- I've been on both sides myself :-) We do not offer support, make no promises of such and offer neither guarantees nor SLAs. What we do offer is: "THERE IS A PORT OF IT". If there is a piece of software out there, chances are, it is ported to FreeBSD. Even if the existing port is imperfect, it is a starting point for somebody, who needs that software on their system. With every port removed, that promise wears thinner and thinner... Maintaining a high level of actual support for the ports tree is the goal here. Without paid contracts talk of "high level actual support" is meaningless. Both src and ports are maintained by people, to whom software-development and engineering is FUN. Support is not fun -- it is a burden. A burden we undertake (you, perhaps, more than others), but do not like... In the near term future we're also hoping to provide some new, better tools; as well as better/more consistent package support. In order to do those things we need to make sure that we're putting our effort where it is most needed. This is great, but: 1. I don't see, how the sliver of removed ports, actually, helps you there. 2. In the past "consistent package support" used to conflict with the loose building from source (recall the ongoing problem with major shlib numbers bogusly included in most LIB_DEPENDS lines). Having to deal with RedHat's yum at work, I got to say, I'd rather be building from source, than installing from "consistent packages", that somebody else built *to their* tastes. Also, having to provide "high level support" for those packages limits their number. No, I don't want FreeBSD to go in that direction at all. Let RedHat cater to that market :-) To rephrase: your opinion seems to be: let's provide better support to fewer ports. I say, that's misguided -- you will not be able to significantly improve the support quality, even if you do remove the niche ports from the tree. But the removal will in itself be harmful... Yours, -mi ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 08:15:04PM -0400, Mikhail T. wrote: > On -10.01.-28163 14:59, Doug Barton wrote: > >Non sequitur. The large number of ports that we support IS a feature. > >However, it's also a pretty big maintenance burden. Especially when you > >consider the number of those ports that are either actually or effectively > >unmaintained. > > Support? What support? Can I call someone and have a solution to a problem? > Some PRs remain open for years and any attempts to escalate are met with > "patches welcome" -- I've been on both sides myself :-) > > We do not offer support, make no promises of such and offer neither > guarantees nor SLAs. What we do offer is: "THERE IS A PORT OF IT". If there > is a piece of software out there, chances are, it is ported to FreeBSD. > Even if the existing port is imperfect, it is a starting point for > somebody, who needs that software on their system. > > With every port removed, that promise wears thinner and thinner... I'm not a developer, but it strikes me that the above hits at the core of the disagreement. For many people, what "THERE IS A PORT OF IT" actually -means- is that the user can go to ports and install a -working- version of the software, not merley that there is something called 'IT' somewhere in the ports tree that may or may not work. And, if I'm not mistaken, this is also what 'support' means in the context of ports. No, of course there is no helpdesk you can call. But just as with the 'supported hardware' list, 'supported' means that the team will do its best to ensure that things actually work. -- greg byshenk - gbysh...@byshenk.net - Leiden, NL ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)
On 08.09.2011 04:42, Greg Byshenk wrote: For many people, what "THERE IS A PORT OF IT" actually -means- is that the user can go to ports and install a -working- version of the software, not merley that there is something called 'IT' somewhere in the ports tree that may or may not work. Some ports -- both maintained or disowned -- will always be behind the upstream. Some ports will always be better than others. Simply removing those, where the perceived quality drops below somebody's subjective threshold does not improve quality. Having a poor port of an obscure piece of software is better, than no port at all. And, yes, this is the core of the disagreement... Yours, -mi ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)
"Mikhail T." wrote: >Having to deal with RedHat's yum at work, I got to say, I'd rather be >building from source, than installing from "consistent packages", that >somebody else built *to their* tastes. Fedora crap is a very bad example. The canonical example of a binary distribution which *works* is Debian. You can always very easily compile a source Debian package to *your* taste, almost as easily as a FreeBSD port. You don't need to compile the hundreds of packages that sit on your hard disk, maybe you are interested in tweaking a couple of ports to your liking and you get the benefit of a much faster installation and upgrade of all the pristine packages. >No, I don't want FreeBSD to go in that direction >at all. Let RedHat cater to that market While i think that going in this direction will be very beneficial to FreeBSD and that ReHat doesn't come anywhere close to cater to this market (i work in a lab which is almost 100% RedHat since many years, and i am not happy at all with that. As much as Ubuntu is despised here, it is light years ahead of the Fedora always beta stuff). -- Michel TALON ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)
Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.: > Having a poor port of an obscure > piece of software is better, than no port at all. A poor port is undesirable (and shouldn't be in the tree in the first place). An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in the first place). Now guess what a poor port of an obscure piece of software is. We're not there to run a museum of horrors, and we're not the starting point or sole provider of such software. In fact we should not even attempt to do that. People interested in that obscure software can either help themselves without a port, can organize the necessary assistance, or should not be running it. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:36:46PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.: > > An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in > the first place). Wait -- what? Why should something not be ported if it's not popular? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpp62DGAXkxK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)
Matthias Andree wrote: > Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.: > > > Having a poor port of an obscure > > piece of software is better, than no port at all. > > A poor port is undesirable (and shouldn't be in the tree in the first > place). Wrong. A `poor' port is is still a port else it would be marked Broken. Still a lot less work to polish than writing a port from scratch. Still a damn sight more use to non programmers than no port. Maybe it might just need a bit more work to speify more depends, but still be working anyway. > An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in > the first place). Rubbish! > Now guess what a poor port of an obscure piece of software is. Something that's still useful cos with it a non programmer has something that will work right now, with a MAINTAINER address he can contact & be told "Encourage me & I'll improve it & send omprovements to FreeBSD too" > We're not there to run a museum of horrors, and we're not the starting > point or sole provider of such software. In fact we should not even > attempt to do that. People interested in that obscure software can > either help themselves without a port, can organize the necessary > assistance, or should not be running it. BSD has a history of more niche/ mature/ specialist/ users & uses. If you want Linux, use Linux Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Reply below, not above; Indent with "> "; Cumulative like a play script. Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. http://www.softwarefreedomday.org 17th Sept, http://berklix.org/sfd/ Oct. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 03:01:09AM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > Matthias Andree wrote: > > Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.: > > > > > Having a poor port of an obscure > > > piece of software is better, than no port at all. > > > > A poor port is undesirable (and shouldn't be in the tree in the first > > place). > > Wrong. > A `poor' port is is still a port else it would be marked Broken. Still > a lot less work to polish than writing a port from scratch. Still a > damn sight more use to non programmers than no port. Maybe it might > just need a bit more work to speify more depends, but still be working > anyway. It occurs to me there are people who would call KDE4 a "poor" port. I suspect deleting that would not go over well. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpdi6O07OpJt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:36:46PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > Am 08.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Mikhail T.: > > > Having a poor port of an obscure > > piece of software is better, than no port at all. > > A poor port is undesirable (and shouldn't be in the tree in the first > place). Highly debatable. It is clear that a poor port is undesirable compared to a good port, but very often a poor port is more desirable than no port at all. > > An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in > the first place). Bullshit! Keep in mind that FreeBSD itself is a fairly obscure piece of software in that most people in the world have never heard of it. For any given individual something like 90+% percent of the ports in the ports-tree could count as obscure since that person has never heard of that particular piece of software before. -- Erik Trulsson ertr1...@student.uu.se ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)
>> An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in >> the first place). > > Bullshit! I think that suffices. If the discussion is getting emotional, we should stop it. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)
Matthias Andree wrote: > >> An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in > >> the first place). > > > > Bullshit! > > I think that suffices. If the discussion is getting emotional, we > should stop it. No. You should stop advocating killing ports, or leave, or be revoked. FreeBSD would be better without immature ports slaughterers. Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Reply below, not above; Indent with "> "; Cumulative like a play script. Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. http://www.softwarefreedomday.org 17 Sept, http://berklix.org/sfd/ 22 Oct. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)
On 12 September 2011 22:18, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > Matthias Andree wrote: >> >> An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in >> >> the first place). >> > >> > Bullshit! >> >> I think that suffices. If the discussion is getting emotional, we >> should stop it. > > No. You should stop advocating killing ports, or leave, or be revoked. > FreeBSD would be better without immature ports slaughterers. > Julian, Your arguments have become excessively ad-hominem, and please don't think you're upsetting anyone in the slightest with them. Use rational and technical arguments, or take a break. Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)
Hi, Reference: > From: Chris Rees > Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:44:37 +0100 > Message-id: > Chris Rees wrote: > On 12 September 2011 22:18, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > Matthias Andree wrote: > >> >> An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in > >> >> the first place). > >> > > >> > Bullshit! > >> > >> I think that suffices. If the discussion is getting emotional, we > >> should stop it. > > > > No. You should stop advocating killing ports, or leave, or be revoked. > > FreeBSD would be better without immature ports slaughterers. > > > > Julian, > > Your arguments have become excessively ad-hominem, and please don't > think you're upsetting anyone in the slightest with them. > > Use rational and technical arguments, or take a break. > > Chris Your proposal to remove procmail among others was ridiculous. Please consider resigning Chris. Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Reply below, not above; Indent with "> "; Cumulative like a play script. Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. http://www.softwarefreedomday.org 17 Sept, http://berklix.org/sfd/ 22 Oct. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)
On 13 September 2011 18:54, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > Hi, > Reference: >> From: Chris Rees >> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:44:37 +0100 >> Message-id: >> > > Chris Rees wrote: >> On 12 September 2011 22:18, Julian H. Stacey wrote: >> > Matthias Andree wrote: >> >> >> An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in >> >> >> the first place). >> >> > >> >> > Bullshit! >> >> >> >> I think that suffices. If the discussion is getting emotional, we >> >> should stop it. >> > >> > No. You should stop advocating killing ports, or leave, or be revoked. >> > FreeBSD would be better without immature ports slaughterers. >> > >> >> Julian, >> >> Your arguments have become excessively ad-hominem, and please don't >> think you're upsetting anyone in the slightest with them. >> >> Use rational and technical arguments, or take a break. >> >> Chris > > Your proposal to remove procmail among others was ridiculous. > Please consider resigning Chris. > Not mine. Please consider reading mailing lists properly rather than jumping to conclusions. Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)
Chris Rees wrote: > On 12 September 2011 22:18, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > Matthias Andree wrote: > >> >> An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in > >> >> the first place). > >> > > >> > Bullshit! > >> > >> I think that suffices. If the discussion is getting emotional, we > >> should stop it. > > > > No. You should stop advocating killing ports, or leave, or be revoked. > > FreeBSD would be better without immature ports slaughterers. > > > > Julian, > > Your arguments have become excessively ad-hominem, and please don't > think you're upsetting anyone in the slightest with them. > > Use rational and technical arguments, or take a break. > > Chris Revised reply as I subsequently notice Chris Rees lack of attribution falsely implies I wrote stuff I did not. > >> >> the first place). > >> > > >> > Bullshit! I did not write that. That was From Erik Trulsson In reply to Matthias Andree Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:22:10 +0200 http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-September/070018.html Seems Chris's butcher colleague Matthias annoyed Erik too. Further Chris's unattributed chunk > > Bullshit! > > I think that suffices. If the discussion is getting emotional, we > should stop it. Was not from or to me, but was: From: Matthias Andree Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 18:06:30 +0200 To: Erik Trulsson http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-September/070075.html Only Chris's final bit had me as sender or recipient, namely: > > I think that suffices. If the discussion is getting emotional, we > > should stop it. > > No. You should stop advocating killing ports, which was not to Chris but was: From Julian H. Stacey jhs at berklix.com Tue Sep 13 08:44:10 UTC 2011 To Matthias Andree http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-September/070164.html Chris's lack of attribution checking was misleading, but not suprising, Chris Rees it was who wanted to kick out procmail. Poor judgement. A few ports butchers should lose commit bits before ports/ will be safe again. Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Reply below, not above; Indent with "> "; Cumulative like a play script. Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. http://www.softwarefreedomday.org 17 Sept, http://berklix.org/sfd/ 22 Oct. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)
Hi, Reference: > From: Chris Rees > Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:25:01 +0100 > Message-id: > Chris Rees wrote: > On 13 September 2011 18:54, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > Hi, > > Reference: > >> From: Chris Rees > >> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:44:37 +0100 > >> Message-id: > >> > > > > Chris Rees wrote: > >> On 12 September 2011 22:18, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > >> > Matthias Andree wrote: > >> >> >> An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported > >> >> >> in > >> >> >> the first place). > >> >> > > >> >> > Bullshit! > >> >> > >> >> I think that suffices. If the discussion is getting emotional, we > >> >> should stop it. > >> > > >> > No. You should stop advocating killing ports, or leave, or be revoked. > >> > FreeBSD would be better without immature ports slaughterers. > >> > > >> > >> Julian, > >> > >> Your arguments have become excessively ad-hominem, and please don't > >> think you're upsetting anyone in the slightest with them. > >> > >> Use rational and technical arguments, or take a break. > >> > >> Chris > > > > Your proposal to remove procmail among others was ridiculous. > > Please consider resigning Chris. > > > > Not mine. > > Please consider reading mailing lists properly rather than jumping to > conclusions. > > Chris Chris Rees You are False. You posted this: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-September/069860.html > Chris Rees utisoft at gmail.com > Sun Sep 4 16:56:37 UTC 2011 > > Guys, > > I've had to deprecate sysutils/cfs -- there's a confirmed issue with > failing locks [1] which has been open for two years with no fix. > > Please would someone consider stepping up to fix and maintain it? It > has two months to live. > > Thanks! > > Chris > > [1] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/137378 > - - > Chris Rees | FreeBSD Developer You then pressurised new Maintainer to fix quick or delete, despite several of us told you in use working fine for ages. Chris Rees, you are butchering ports/ You were give a commit bit 11th June 2011. http://www.freebsd.org/news/newsflash.html Its time that commit bit was revoked to protect ports/ along with perhaps 3 other misguided butchers' commit bits, perhaps one of whom might have been your commit mentor. Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Reply below, not above; Indent with "> "; Cumulative like a play script. Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. http://www.softwarefreedomday.org 17 Sept, http://berklix.org/sfd/ 22 Oct. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)
On 13 Sep 2011 20:57, "Julian H. Stacey" wrote: > > Hi, > Reference: > > From: Chris Rees > > Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:25:01 +0100 > > Message-id: > > Chris Rees wrote: > > On 13 September 2011 18:54, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > > Hi, > > > Reference: > > >> From: Chris Rees > > >> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:44:37 +0100 > > >> Message-id: < cadlo83-zcvaeyznw5dtehv1tosburzllr2hjxfjrx_qewph...@mail.gmail.com> > > > > > > Chris Rees wrote: > > >> On 12 September 2011 22:18, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > >> > Matthias Andree wrote: > > >> >> >> An obscure piece of software is undesirable (and shouldn't be ported in > > >> >> >> the first place). > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Bullshit! > > >> >> > > >> >> I think that suffices. If the discussion is getting emotional, we > > >> >> should stop it. > > >> > > > >> > No. You should stop advocating killing ports, or leave, or be revoked. > > >> > FreeBSD would be better without immature ports slaughterers. > > >> > > > >> > > >> Julian, > > >> > > >> Your arguments have become excessively ad-hominem, and please don't > > >> think you're upsetting anyone in the slightest with them. > > >> > > >> Use rational and technical arguments, or take a break. > > >> > > >> Chris > > > > > > Your proposal to remove procmail among others was ridiculous. > > > Please consider resigning Chris. > > > > > > > Not mine. > > > > Please consider reading mailing lists properly rather than jumping to > > conclusions. > > > > Chris > > Chris Rees You are False. You posted this: > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-September/069860.html > > > Chris Rees utisoft at gmail.com > > Sun Sep 4 16:56:37 UTC 2011 > > > > Guys, > > > > I've had to deprecate sysutils/cfs -- there's a confirmed issue with > > failing locks [1] which has been open for two years with no fix. > > > > Please would someone consider stepping up to fix and maintain it? It > > has two months to live. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Chris > > > > [1] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/137378 > > - - > > Chris Rees | FreeBSD Developer > > You then pressurised new Maintainer to fix quick or delete, > despite several of us told you in use working fine for ages. > > Chris Rees, you are butchering ports/ You were give a commit bit > 11th June 2011. http://www.freebsd.org/news/newsflash.html > > Its time that commit bit was revoked to protect ports/ along with > perhaps 3 other misguided butchers' commit bits, perhaps one of > whom might have been your commit mentor. > You are quite hilarious. I did not suggest depreciation of procmail, so I'm unsure why you keep asserting that. Why don't you count the number of ports I've actually 'butchered'? The cvs-ports list is public and easy to search. You're asserting that I've turned up and suddenly started to destroy the tree, which is anything but true, and I find it quite pathetic. Perhaps you need to take a break-- I'm rather tired of being called to defend myself, I've plenty of better things to be doing. Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: ports-system priorities rant (Re: sysutils/cfs)
On 9/13/11 4:52 PM, Chris Rees wrote: > I'm rather tired of being called to defend myself, I see no reason why you should find it necessary. Bravo for the work you've done. > I've plenty of better things to be doing. > Agreed. Julian, amongst others this past few weeks, have successfully made it indefinitely to my bit bucket. I suggest you do the same, and take the advice of /etc/motd: Shut Up and Code!!! :-) -- Glen Barber | g...@freebsd.org FreeBSD Documentation Project ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
