--XvKFcGCOAo53UbWW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 08:09:20AM -0800, Jason R Thorpe wrote:

> If we're going to remote ANYTHING from basesrc, it probably ought to be
> RCS -- CVS no longer requires it, and most people use CVS for version
> controlling these days.

Gaak. No, I use RCS a lot. It would be a loss if it were gone. I wouldn't
be at all opposed to having it available as a package rather than as
part of basesrc, of course. (I think I'm going to see exactly what's
involved with setting up a CVS repository for myself now, however. Can't
hurt.) I also feel this way about uucp, which I use heavily but which
could just as easily be a package.

But, to answer the question, I'd (as may be guessed) have no problem
with the removal of CVS as long as there's an equivalent package available.

However, if having extra stuff in basesrc is an issue, I'd like to point
out that we carry both sendmail *and* postfix. This seems like a weightier
issue. (Pun intended.)

--=20
   Mason Loring Bliss   mason@acheron.middleboro.ma.us              E w i g=
 e
awake ? sleep : dream;  http://acheron.ne.mediaone.net  B l u m e n k r a f=
 t


--XvKFcGCOAo53UbWW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (NetBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE6PlcrykMMY715wXIRAiwAAJ97Af4bi4L2Qwna37de6X4c7mHvygCg0o1W
oWHwlSisVE9YHe0LJZIGO4E=
=FdsY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--XvKFcGCOAo53UbWW--