Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 14:37:03 +0200 From: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> To: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, Joseph Mallett <jmallett@newgold.net>, dannyman <dannyman@toldme.com> Subject: Re: (long) upgrade kit for 3.x ports?! Message-ID: <20010510143702.A84503@rapier.smartspace.co.za> In-Reply-To: <p05100308b7203779c364@[194.78.241.123]>; from brad.knowles@skynet.be on Thu, May 10, 2001 at 02:23:22PM %2B0200 References: <20010509140838.C17000@dell.dannyland.org> <200105100026.RAA04754@usr06.primenet.com> <20010509180154.E17000@dell.dannyland.org> <p05100308b7203779c364@[194.78.241.123]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu 2001-05-10 (14:23), Brad Knowles wrote: > At 6:01 PM -0700 5/9/01, dannyman wrote: > > > How convenient that the Postfix port does not go out of its way to remove > > compatability logic explicitly added for what is by now an "unsupported" > > version of FreeBSD, even though the ports tree REFUSES to be compatible with > > said version of FreeBSD. > > Each port maintainer is free to make whatever changes they want > in the way they support their port, and for which version of which > OS. Just because the postfix port does something you do (or do not) > like, does not mean that all the other 5000+ ports have to do (or > must not do) the same. > > > , I have used bleeding-edge ports tree on truly ancient boxen for years. > > And they guy who had a German 75mm mortar shell left over from > WWII and was using it as a sword sharpener every day for fifty-five > years didn't have any problems, until the day it blew up on him. > > Just because you do something incredibly stupid and get away with > it, doesn't mean that the thing isn't incredibly stupid to begin with. > > > I mean, 3.5 was released LESS THAN ONE YEAR AGO and now I am FORCED TO > > UPGRADE if I want to install a single piece of software?! That strikes me as > > pointlessly fascist. > > Repeat after me: > > Ports must be no later than OS. > Ports must be no later than OS. > Ports must be no later than OS. > > > Now, if you want to upgrade your version of /usr/ports on a daily > basis, I would suggest that you also upgrade the OS on a daily basis, > so that they stay in sync. > > Otherwise, you get what you ask for. Uh, I haven't seen you on -ports lately. Where did you get this knowledge? If you mean packages (built for later releases), I wholeheartedly agree that noone can sanely extpect packages built on _future_ releases to work on previous releases, especially not a different major version. If you mean building from /usr/ports, we do support at least the last release, and we could arbitrarily support (infrastructurally) a lot more. And since I have a 3.3-RELEASE machine using (the latest checked out) ports without problem, I think people are being silly. The "fix", as Alex says, is to bump /var/db/port.mkversion, and (in this case), update the pkg_tools manually if you wish to create packages, or use the origin extension in pkg_info. I've brought up the fact we could easily support 3.x machines for the ports tree (ie, building from source, not packages built on later releaess) with an upgrade package on the ports list, but I was met with silence. And could people please talk about ports on ports@FreeBSD.org. Neil -- Neil Blakey-Milner nbm@mithrandr.moria.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010510143702.A84503>