From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Jul 30 14:24:38 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA08266 for ports-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 14:24:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA08147 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 14:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from narvi@localhost) by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05316; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 00:27:19 +0300 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 00:27:19 +0300 (EET DST) From: Narvi To: Chuck Robey cc: Stefan Esser , andreas@klemm.gtn.com, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/print/ghostscript4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Chuck Robey wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, Narvi wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Chuck Robey wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Stefan Esser wrote: > > > > > > > > Problems like this should be real easily fixable - or will something more > > > > > than the number in the filename have to change in the makefile? > > > > > > > > Sure. But what I meant to say was, that if only > > > > the name of a distribution files changes, then > > > > we should generally keep the old name in the > > > > port's Makefile, in order to reduce unneccesary > > > > multi-megabyte FTP transfers. > > > > > > > > A note might be required in the Makefile, which > > > > indicates that the TAR file remains unchanged > > > > and thus the version from the previous release > > > > will still be used ... > > > > > > I'm not sure I agree with this. The old tar file is very likely to > > > become much harder to get, and keeping parts of older versions, to > > > balance off ftp loading time, well, I think this isn't wise. I think it > > > would just cause much more confusion than the time saved, for the largest > > > number of people. > > > > It is not the case actually - there are cases when there is no newer > > file, just a link with the new name to the old file... > > I realize it's a case the the same data, new name, but it's the new name > that I think is important. Those of us that know enough, can simply > rename the darn thing in our ports/distfiles, and I think that we owe > that much to our less sophisticated users, not to inject gratuitous > confusion. This is too much of a hack for it to be institutionalized. It still seems to me to be something institutionalised upon the port maintainers - we shouldn't consider them the less sophisticated user's, should we? Sander > > ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- > Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data > chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. > 9120 Edmonston Ct #302 | > Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and n3lxx, both FreeBSD > (301) 220-2114 | version 2.2 current -- and great FUN! > ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- > >