Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:16:43 -0700 From: Pascal Hofstee <caelian@gmail.com> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: gnome@freebsd.org, Ade Lovett <ade@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: improving devel/m4 Message-ID: <1126646203.910.1.camel@synergy.odyssey.homeunix.org> In-Reply-To: <200509131653.17218.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> References: <200509130558.j8D5w1Ha088160@blue.virtual-estates.net> <200509131508.02955.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <6CA62C9C-7BC6-4B51-8C65-DB5381B68491@freebsd.org> <200509131653.17218.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 16:53 -0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > вівторок 13 вересень 2005 16:45 Ви написали: > > [ade@foo:~] 6% grep m4-1.4.3 /usr/ports/INDEX.local |wc -l > > 726 > > > > With 726 direct consumers of m4 within the ports tree, caution is > > always a good thing. > > You skipped through my point, that the current ports will not make it to > 6.0-RELEASE anyway. The ports tree was tagged back in August. > > And even if we decide to re-do the port-freeze/thaw, there will be full > rebuilds on all platforms -- with 726 users pointyhat is sure to find trouble > if there is one... Ade's point is that even though we are out of the ports-freeze .. there's is still a "slush-phase" going on where large sweeping changes are not allowed ... (hence why gnome-2.12 hasn't been imported yet). changing a port with 726 direct consumers, at least in my opinion, falls under the large sweeping change category, regardless how minute the nature of the actual change may be. -- Pascal Hofstee <caelian@gmail.com>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1126646203.910.1.camel>