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>