Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:45:23 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD-10 -> FreeBSD-9.9 ? Message-ID: <20111025184523.GC47524@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <201110250918.28709.hselasky@c2i.net> References: <CAJ-Vmom27Z3pkbVyFhsmdt60KDSsxNmT4jLa=dQJrdUGLUNqoA@mail.gmail.com> <20111024230623.GB14274@dragon.NUXI.org> <201110250918.28709.hselasky@c2i.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 09:18:28AM +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 October 2011 01:06:23 David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:04:13AM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > > Just an idle comment - why don't we just rename FreeBSD-10 to
> > > FreeBSD-9.9 for now, and give the ports/developers some time to "fix"
> > > bad autoconf/automake scripts?
> > > That way -current can still be used for testing/development.
> >
> > I figured someone else would respond by now...
> >
> > \aol{me too!}
> >
> > (though I suggest 9.99 as a value we'd never hit)
> >
> > I've made this change on all my local systems.
>
> Why not use 9.5.x ?
> Whould give more number space to increment?
Eh? Sorry I don't follow -- why do we need to increment?
"9.99" is a temperary work around to buy us just a few months time to fix
ports. Such a band-aid should not exist long enough to need to increment
anything.
We mostly just need to not fall into things like:
case $host_os in
[...]
freebsd1*)
ld_shlibs=no
;;
[...]
in 'configure'.
--
-- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111025184523.GC47524>