Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 02:54:59 -0700 From: "Tom Nakamura" <imifumei@imap.cc> To: "Kris Kennaway" <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Breaking Fox-toolkit down into fox10, fox12, fox14, etc? Message-ID: <1113126899.21063.231518663@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <20050410093620.GA54508@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <1113124895.4417.231517896@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20050410093620.GA54508@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 02:36:20 -0700, "Kris Kennaway" <kris@obsecurity.org> said: > On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 02:21:35AM -0700, Tom Nakamura wrote: > > I was thinking it would be a good idea to break down the fox-toolkit > > into 'fox10', 'fox12', 'fox14', and (recently) 'fox15', instead of the > > current 'fox' port (which tracks 1.0.x) and 'fox-devel' port (which > > tracks 1.4.x). I say this because > > 1) 'fox' is rather old, and 'fox-devel' is the development branch which > > is extremely new; having fox12 strikes a good balance; > > 2) the current version of 'ruby-fox' (fxruby.org) is geared for > > fox-1.2.x (which guarantees compatibiltiy), but instead with only a > > 'fox' and 'fox-devel', ruby-fox builds with fox-1.4.x, which may > > introduce incompatibilities. > > any thoughts? > > Only the versions that are acually useful should be in the ports > collection. e.g. if no ports need fox 1.0, it shouldn't be kept. I'd > be surprised if there was a need for 4 distinct versions. > > Kris You haven't check how many tk ports there are recently, have you :-)? Anyways, its mostly because developement on fox is extremely rapid, and fxruby (uses 1.2.x) and fxpy (uses 1.0.x i think) can't keep up, so they are still necessary; though 1.5.x is unneccesary, i think it would be a good idea to have at least a fox12 tom -- eyefull@eml.cc
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1113126899.21063.231518663>