Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 05:44:10 -0700 From: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> To: Dmitry Sivachenko <demon@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r496887 - head/net/haproxy Message-ID: <201903261244.x2QCiAmp021565@slippy.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: Message from Dmitry Sivachenko <demon@FreeBSD.org> of "Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:49:06 -0000." <201903261049.x2QAn6h2040456@repo.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <201903261049.x2QAn6h2040456@repo.freebsd.org>, Dmitry Sivachenko wr ites: > Author: demon > Date: Tue Mar 26 10:49:06 2019 > New Revision: 496887 > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/496887 > > Log: > Switch to 1.9 branch. > > Modified: > head/net/haproxy/Makefile > head/net/haproxy/distinfo > head/net/haproxy/pkg-plist > Would there not be any value in an haproxy18 and an haproxy19 port? With possibly an haproxy meta-port that points to the recommended port? It's been my experience, especially with krb5, that people request maintaining the old port for a while. -- Cheers, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> FreeBSD UNIX: <cy@FreeBSD.org> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201903261244.x2QCiAmp021565>