From thomas@ghpc8.ihf.rwth-aachen.de  Mon Nov  3 06:01:36 1997
Received: from ghpc8.ihf.rwth-aachen.de (ghpc8.ihf.RWTH-Aachen.DE [134.130.90.8])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA03736
          for <freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 06:01:20 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from thomas@ghpc8.ihf.rwth-aachen.de)
Received: from ghpc6.ihf.rwth-aachen.de (ghpc6.ihf.rwth-aachen.de [134.130.90.6])
	by ghpc8.ihf.rwth-aachen.de (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id OAA24756
	for <freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 1997 14:43:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from thomas@localhost)
	by ghpc6.ihf.rwth-aachen.de (8.8.7/8.8.5) id OAA06162;
	Mon, 3 Nov 1997 14:43:38 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <87iuua9jp2.fsf@ghpc6.ihf.rwth-aachen.de>
Date: 03 Nov 1997 14:43:37 +0100
From: Thomas Gellekum <tg@ihf.rwth-aachen.de>
Sender: thomas@ghpc8.ihf.rwth-aachen.de
To: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: Owner of many system processes's message of Mon, 3 Nov 1997 05:26:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: PR ports/4277
References: <199711031326.FAA02091@hub.freebsd.org>

>Number:         4926
>Category:       ports
>Synopsis:       Re: PR ports/4277
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    steve
>State:          closed
>Quarter:
>Keywords:
>Date-Required:
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   current-users
>Arrival-Date:   Mon Nov  3 06:10:01 PST 1997
>Closed-Date:    Mon Nov 3 18:21:20 PST 1997
>Last-Modified:  Mon Nov  3 18:24:42 PST 1997
>Originator:     
>Release:        
>Organization:
>Environment:
>Description:
>How-To-Repeat:
>Fix:
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
Responsible-Changed-From-To: gnats-admin->freebsd-bugs 
Responsible-Changed-By: steve 
Responsible-Changed-When: Mon Nov 3 18:18:23 PST 1997 
Responsible-Changed-Why:  
Misfiled PR. 
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed 
State-Changed-By: steve 
State-Changed-When: Mon Nov 3 18:21:20 PST 1997 
State-Changed-Why:  
Not really a PR.  This should have been submitted as a 
follow-up to PR/4277.  If it's any consolation I think 
asclock should remain a separate port, for those of 
us that prefer it over xclock, but don't use AfterStep. 
>Unformatted:
Owner of many system processes <daemon@FreeBSD.ORG> writes:

> >Number:         4277
> >Category:       ports
> >Synopsis:       New port: asclock

asclock is part of afterstep now, which we already have in our
ports. Do we still need this one?

tg
