From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Oct 27 05:47:23 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4D616A4CE
	for <freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org>;
	Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:47:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from kam.pl (bsd.kam.pl [195.205.77.13])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7952F43D4C
	for <freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org>;
	Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:47:22 +0000 (GMT)	(envelope-from pyzmen@kam.pl)
Received: (qmail 12256 invoked by uid 1008); 27 Oct 2004 05:47:19 -0000
Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 27 Oct 2004 05:47:19 -0000
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:47:19 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Krzysztof Kowalewski, Jr." <pyzmen@kam.pl>
To: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <200410262239.i9QMdKM9019742@freefall.freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20041027074354.I11639@bsd.kam.pl>
References: <200410262239.i9QMdKM9019742@freefall.freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
cc: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: ports/73115: New (update) port: polish/sms2 (2.0.0-release)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ports bug reports <freebsd-ports-bugs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports-bugs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:47:24 -0000

On 26/10/2004 at 22:39, Pav Lucistnik wrote:

> State-Changed-Why:
> Must this be a new port? Would updateing polish/sms to 2.0.0
> work better? I think it's same software and there's no point
> in leaving 1.9.2 around, right?

It is the same software, but changes between sms 1.9.2 and sms 2.0.0 are 
very, very big. Most of users do not realise that there is new version 
and they will get lots of problem if they update (and some people will) 
without taking a look into README. That is why I decided to write another 
port, at least for a short period of time i.e. 2 months, both ports could 
be present in order to give people time to switch. Or, if it is not what 
you agree with, a warning message can be placed into pkg-message without 
notification to actually read README.

-- 
Best regards,
Krzysztof Kowalewski.