From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Sep 8 20:50:25 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D92737B43E; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 20:50:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id UAA99290; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 20:50:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 20:50:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: Will Andrews Cc: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami , Neil Blakey-Milner , FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: Ports Options Paper In-Reply-To: <20000908213823.F632@radon.gryphonsoft.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Will Andrews wrote: > What's wrong with the method he's suggesting? If you are worried about > clashing WRKSRCs, just see one of my previous emails. All that needs to > be adjusted is PKGNAME, and as long as the dependencies are satisfied, a > package can be compiled and generated. I suggest the way forward in this direction would be to actually implement patches and look for any unexepcted problems. But let's try and keep the number of concurrent projects to a minimum since it's only a few of us involved, and probably fewer still who are going to be writing patches - we have the improved versioning system about to go in, it's probably most productive now to actually go and implement one of the remaining ones, instead of talking about them all at once and getting nowhere. I suggest porting NetBSD's wildcard dependency and conflict stuff next. Thats the next step towards an upgrade system. Kris -- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message