Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:26:03 +0300 From: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@ciam.ru> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ability for maintainers to update own ports Message-ID: <3FB137CB.30209@ciam.ru> In-Reply-To: <20031111183540.GA26599@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <1068458390.38101.19.camel@dirk.no.domain> <20031110152000.622db381.lehmann@ans-netz.de> <1068471598.38101.77.camel@dirk.no.domain> <20031110163623.GC93583@procyon.firepipe.net> <1068495958.690.72.camel@leguin> <53EC784E-13C5-11D8-AD24-003065ABFD92@mac.com> <3FB00E53.8060603@fillmore-labs.com> <20031111021929.GA17050@xor.obsecurity.org> <73E9F604-1472-11D8-BD31-003065ABFD92@mac.com> <20031111183540.GA26599@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris Kennaway wrote: > There's no way that we can reasonably guarantee that tagged ports will > work together (e.g. what happens when a dependency changes?), so > tagging has minimal benefit. We already provide this level of minimal > support for people who want to try to mix and match old ports, namely > people can use cvs to manage their ports tree and update ports to > whichever CVS revision they like. Yes, I suppose it will a tags nightmare this way. --- Sem.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3FB137CB.30209>