Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 13:11:26 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@dimaga.com> To: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: AfterStep in -current Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970114131125.00a753f0@dimaga.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 02:09 AM 1/14/97 -0800, Satoshi Asami wrote: > * Perhaps it would be an idea for ports to specify minimum version of > * bsd.ports.mk? (Just set it to whatever the author of the port has on his > * system - better that too many people upgrade than too few.) > >I don't think that is necassary, and it will be a royal pain to keep >track for the whole ports tree. Why is it nescarry to keep track? I suggest just copying the version number from the version the port author is running to somewhere in the port, and just let that be a minimum. No changes until the port is 'naturally updated', whereupon people might again be required to update bsd.ports.mk. >I really don't want to add another mandatory variable to every single one of >our 752 ports. Default to no version requirement. No need to update old ports. >Besides, the ports tree is only tracking -current, in principle. If >you have an old system, you should always get the latest bsd.port.mk >(and put it in /usr/share/mk :) and try your luck, as we still cannot >guarantee anything. Of course. The point of this was to make it easier to avoid spurious bug-reports of the type I gave. Not a pet idea of mine; just something I thought might save _you_ some work. Eivind Eklund / perhaps@yes.no / http://maybe.yes.no/perhaps/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.32.19970114131125.00a753f0>