Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 04:34:37 -0800 (PST) From: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: eivind@dimaga.com Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: AfterStep in -current Message-ID: <199701141234.EAA04509@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970114131125.00a753f0@dimaga.com> (message from Eivind Eklund on Tue, 14 Jan 1997 13:11:26 %2B0100)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* 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. Oh, I see. I guess we can even automate it, just like files/md5 creation. asami$ make makeid asami$ cat files/portid 1.248 asami$ <cvs commit, someone else downloads it> eivind% make This port requires bsd.port.mk rev. 1.248; you have 1.247. *** Error code 1 Stop. eivind% fetch ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/FreeBSD-current/.... :) * Default to no version requirement. No need to update old ports. Actually, if we are going to do something like this, we should make it mandatory, to reduce the chance of mistakes. * 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. Thanks, but I still wonder if that kind of case is really that frequent. ;) Also, another problem is that if we go to twin-branch development (for 2.2.5 and 3.0, we are planning this after the 2.2R) on the ports tree, it is quite possible that we'll have two versions of bsd.port.mk. We then can't easily compare the revisions on different cvs branches. But nonetheless, this is a very interesting idea. Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701141234.EAA04509>