From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 12 05:42:17 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F96116A4D2; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 05:42:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from lakermmtao09.cox.net (lakermmtao09.cox.net [68.230.240.30]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B22D743D39; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 05:42:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mezz7@cox.net) Received: from mezz ([68.103.32.140]) by lakermmtao09.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02.01 201-2131-111-104-103-20040709) with ESMTP id <20040812054213.BNZD20883.lakermmtao09.cox.net@mezz>; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 01:42:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:42:14 -0500 To: "Roman Bogorodskiy" References: <200408091253.i79CrT8k058076@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040811104830.GA709@lame.novel.ru> <20040811190458.GB96458@toxic.magnesium.net> <20040812050932.GC69853@lame.novel.ru> From: "Jeremy Messenger" Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20040812050932.GC69853@lame.novel.ru> User-Agent: Opera M2/7.54 (Linux, build 751) cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org cc: Adam Weinberger cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/x11-wm/fluxbox Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 05:42:17 -0000 On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:09:32 +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote: > Adam wrote: > >> And FWIW, seeing as how the old fluxbox will never get another update, I >> really don't think that x11-wm/fluxbox should be kept in the tree any >> longer; I think that x11-wm/fluxbox-devel should overwrite >> x11-wm/fluxbox immediately. > > Agreed. Anyway, if many people want to see fluxbox in the ports tree it > could be returned, doesn't it? Yes, as long if anyone want to take the maintainership and send it to PR for request the repo copy (fluxbox -> fluxbox-old, fluxbox01 or whatever) just as I said (you stripped out) in my previous email. I will not object on this, but it's up to portmgr too if they approve. > As for fluxbox-devel -> fluxbox repocopy right now I think that it's a > good idea, becouse fluxbox-devel seems to be even more stable than > fluxbox and it's supported by developers. I personal rather to wait until it's offical released by the developers. Styles that come with the tarball are out of date and few other small things could use to fix. I am sure that the developers will update/fix the styles in the final. > PS I don't really want to start a war simular to the shells/bash* one :-) That kind of half war is kind of silly if you ask me ;-), but I only agree about 'foobar' without number should be offical version/stable one unless it's something special like gnome2/kde3/libxml2. Anyway, I doubt we will have another war for fluxbox. Cheers, Mezz > -Roman Bogorodskiy -- mezz7@cox.net - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org