"A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven" <[email protected]> writes: > I happened to notice that there are already several misc/fortune* ports > and it takes only the slightest bit of imagination to come up with several > more. Hell, I alone can think of at least a dozen or so. However, we > probably don't want to fill the ports tree with a whole bunch of ports > that are pretty much the same except for the one or two files they > install. Moreover, who is to say which fortune ports get accepted and > which don't? This got me thinking: > > Would it be a good idea to merge all fortune* ports into one and use the > OPTIONS framework to let the user select which cookie jar(s) they wish to > install?
That would be a fine idea, as long as it doesn't raise any license problems. We don't actually consider or track licenses on any fortune files or ports. I don't think that's a problem at the moment, but it's very difficult to be positive, especially with regard to collection copyrights. To be honest, I was surprised at how *few* fortune files we have in ports. I maintain three or four "jars" for my own use, and expected that at least *some* people would have shared theirs. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
