Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 00:54:26 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/39808: Update x11-toolkits/xforms to 0.89 Message-ID: <20020624225425.GA6282@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <20020624153903.D30655@ninja1.internal> References: <20020624221939.48EE0D124A@rand.tgd.net> <20020624223441.GA2578@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> <20020624153903.D30655@ninja1.internal>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 03:39:03PM -0700, Sean Chittenden wrote: > > > The patch below updates xforms to 0.89, but potentially breaks > > > alpha builds given that the XForms hasn't released any alpha builds, > > > but I'm not sure if it's possible to build from src. This entire > > > package seems arcane and super old/out of date. > > > > It was updated to 0.89 once previously but was then downgraded again. > > The commit message at the time was: > > > > revision 1.38 > > date: 2001/03/02 18:44:38; author: sobomax; state: Exp; lines: +8 -10 > > On i386 downgrade to 0.88 because 0.89 is buggy and segfaults very too often. > > > > Submitted by: Mike Heffner <mheffner@vt.edu> > > > > So changing to 0.89 might not be a good idea. > > xforms is a disaster, IMHO and I'm glad LyX is moving away from it (I > don't know if there is any other software that uses it at this point) A quick grep through INDEX shows that there are several other programs (none of which I use, or know anything about) that depends on xforms. > and suports gnome/kde in the latest release. Except for the fact that both gnome and kde are big and bloated beyond all reason and pretty much unusable on low-end machines. (By low-end I here mean anything with less than 64 MB RAM.) > > > > PORTNAME= xforms > > > -PORTVERSION= 0.88 > > > -PORTEPOCH= 1 > > > > Once PORTEPOCH has been set it should *never* be removed or decreased. > > I thought you could if the version num increased. What a PITA. > ::sigh:: Ah well. Thx. -sc Nope. PORTEPOCH is the first thing checked when comparing port version numbers. Only if PORTEPOCH is equal is PORTVERSION checked, followed by PORTREVISION if necessary. You can read more about this in the Porter's Handbook at <http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/x382.html>; -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020624225425.GA6282>