🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <0{@byu.edu> gritton@alaska.caedm.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton) writes:

      No. Distributions are not the same as hierarchies. 

And yet again I will say:  that is not what RFC 1036 says.  Maybe you
_want_ it to be gone, and maybe it _should_ be gone, but the reality
is that both in the standards and in practise, hierarchies are
distributions.

      C news was designed to mark the difference between hierarchies and
   distributions, and you could always do it with B news if you cared to put
   forth the effort.

Henry and Geoff have said in the past that the distributions subfield
was really only intended for a smaller subset of applications and not
the norm.

   >   If you post using Gnus, email me for a simple patch that fixes
   >   this.

   >What could you do to GNUS to fix what isn't broken?

      No, it *is* broken. It is! It is! It is!

Heck, I'm a GNUS user and I agree with that.  But not because of a
shared purists' view with those who maintain hierarchies are not
distributions.

   While I accept that there is such a distribution as "gnu" (even if it's
   totally redundant), there isn't a distribution "comp" or "misc", etc.

This seems contrary.  Why do you accept there is a gnu distribution?
Because of Bob's response explaining why there was?  His explanation
isn't any different than why there _is_ a comp distribution too.