Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:29:31 -0500 From: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Referendum on the recent Mozilla changes Message-ID: <20020904172931.GB80225@leviathan.inethouston.net> In-Reply-To: <1031160338.407.19.camel@gyros.marcuscom.com> References: <1031160338.407.19.camel@gyros.marcuscom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> My question is this: would it be better to leave things the way they > are, have www/mozilla track the quarterly stable releases, and have > www/mozilla-devel track the _latest_ release (e.g. 1.1)? Or, would it > be better to do things like the way gcc does it? For example, create a > www/mozilla10, www/mozilla11, etc.? We are trying to move away from the version number in the ports unless its something like X where the major version changes once every few years. Atleast that's what I heard last. Maybe there needs to be something about this put into the porters handbook so we don't have any confusion about this in the future. > I feel that the -devel model _can_ track the upcoming Mozilla releases, > while giving users a choice as to which version to run. However, since > I didn't ask before, I thought I'd solicit some feedback before the 4.7 > ports freeze. I don't see the problem with -devel and I didn't know there were any issues with it. Maybe calling it -current for those who get confused by -devel might be better, but I don't have a problem with what you did. -- David W. Chapman Jr. dwcjr@inethouston.net Raintree Network Services, Inc. <www.inethouston.net> dwcjr@freebsd.org FreeBSD Committer <www.FreeBSD.org> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020904172931.GB80225>