Re: Procmail got updated!

2017-12-23 Thread Matthias Andree
Am 23.12.2017 um 08:12 schrieb Kevin Oberman: > > So, why does Eugene's question have no relevance to the procmail > case?  Could you please explain? Because I am not willing to discuss generics when we have a specific case of port at hand. The attempted generalization distracts from that, and I i

FreeBSD ports you maintain which are out of date

2017-12-23 Thread portscout
Dear port maintainer, The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more of your ports appears to be out of date. Please take the opportunity to check each of the ports listed below, and if possible and appropriate, submit/commit an update. If any ports have already been updated, you

Re: Procmail got updated!

2017-12-23 Thread Ted Hatfield
On Sat, 23 Dec 2017, Matthias Andree wrote: Am 23.12.2017 um 08:12 schrieb Kevin Oberman: So, why does Eugene's question have no relevance to the procmail case?  Could you please explain? Because I am not willing to discuss generics when we have a specific case of port at hand. The attempted

Re: Procmail got updated!

2017-12-23 Thread Matthias Apitz
On Saturday, 23 December 2017 17:42:26 CET, Ted Hatfield wrote: ... I think that as long as someone is willing to patch the software when vulnerabilities come up we should keep the port available. Ted Hatfield +1 matthias -- Sent from my Ubuntu phone http://www.unixarea.de/ __

Re: Are these Emacs ports still useful?

2017-12-23 Thread Yasuhiro KIMURA
From: Joseph Mingrone Subject: Are these Emacs ports still useful? Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 17:29:51 -0400 > A quick scan suggests that these port may have passed their usefulness. > Could you speak up if they are still useful or if you feel they should > be removed? (snip) > - japanese/lookup (sou

Re: Are these Emacs ports still useful?

2017-12-23 Thread Joseph Mingrone
Yasuhiro KIMURA writes: > From: Joseph Mingrone > Subject: Are these Emacs ports still useful? > Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 17:29:51 -0400 >> A quick scan suggests that these port may have passed their usefulness. >> Could you speak up if they are still useful or if you feel they should >> be remov

Are these Emacs ports still useful?

2017-12-23 Thread Joseph Mingrone
[resending (with updates) because original message did not make it to the list] Hello all, A quick scan suggests that these port may have passed their usefulness. Could you speak up if they are still useful or if you feel they should be removed? Regards, Joseph - sysutils/puppet-mode.el (pulli

Re: Are these Emacs ports still useful?

2017-12-23 Thread Joseph Mingrone
[resending because original message did not make it to the list] Joseph Mingrone writes: > Yasuhiro KIMURA writes: >> From: Joseph Mingrone >> Subject: Are these Emacs ports still useful? >> Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 17:29:51 -0400 >>> A quick scan suggests that these port may have passed their

Re: Are these Emacs ports still useful?

2017-12-23 Thread Joseph Mingrone
[resending because original did not make it to the list] Joseph Mingrone writes: > Hajimu UMEMOTO writes: >> Hi, >>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 17:29:51 -0400 >>> Joseph Mingrone said: >> jrm> - mail/xcite (no real updates since 2010, still useful?) >> I'm using it. It is very useful at l

Re: Are these Emacs ports still useful?

2017-12-23 Thread Hajimu UMEMOTO
Hi, I resend this message because it was rejected by ports list. > On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 17:29:51 -0400 > Joseph Mingrone said: jrm> - mail/x-face-e21 (not fetchable) It seems fetchable. -- Hajimu UMEMOTO u...@mahoroba.org u...@freebsd.org http://www.mahoroba.org/~ume/ ___

Re: Are these Emacs ports still useful?

2017-12-23 Thread Yasuhiro KIMURA
From: Joseph Mingrone Subject: Are these Emacs ports still useful? Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 17:29:51 -0400 > A quick scan suggests that these port may have passed their usefulness. > Could you speak up if they are still useful or if you feel they should > be removed? (snip) > - editors/apel (2010

Re: Are these Emacs ports still useful?

2017-12-23 Thread Hajimu UMEMOTO
Hi, I resend this message because it was rejected by ports list. > On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 17:29:51 -0400 > Joseph Mingrone said: jrm> - mail/xcite (no real updates since 2010, still useful?) I'm using it. It is very useful at least for me. I don't think no update means no usefulness. :-(

Re: Are these Emacs ports still useful?

2017-12-23 Thread Joseph Mingrone
Yasuhiro KIMURA writes: > From: Joseph Mingrone > Subject: Re: Are these Emacs ports still useful? > Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 18:29:29 -0400 A quick scan suggests that these port may have passed their usefulness. Could you speak up if they are still useful or if you feel they should >>>

Re: Are these Emacs ports still useful?

2017-12-23 Thread Yasuhiro KIMURA
From: Joseph Mingrone Subject: Re: Are these Emacs ports still useful? Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 18:29:29 -0400 >>> A quick scan suggests that these port may have passed their usefulness. >>> Could you speak up if they are still useful or if you feel they should >>> be removed? >> (snip) >>> - edit

Re: Procmail got updated!

2017-12-23 Thread Kevin Oberman
On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Matthias Andree wrote: > Am 23.12.2017 um 08:12 schrieb Kevin Oberman: > > > > So, why does Eugene's question have no relevance to the procmail > > case? Could you please explain? > > Because I am not willing to discuss generics when we have a specific > case of

Re: Canberra

2017-12-23 Thread blubee blubeeme
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Sid wrote: > > Blubee Blubeeme; > > Who thought that was a good idea, now layer a few more audio layers and > u have Linux[ism] to the max. > > Well, I think that it's not really worth it to go untangle that mess. > > It's okay if you're using a Gnome DE since it'

Re: Procmail got updated!

2017-12-23 Thread Dave Horsfall
I'm beginning to regret starting this thread; then again, I do come from a long line of stirrers (to which some bods on this list will attest)... And yes, I'm still annoyed that "jive"[*] got deleted for no technical reason whatsoever; then again, I'm still bemused by Americans taking a leak i