From owner-freebsd-ports  Sat Jan 17 06:40:41 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA01527
          for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jan 1998 06:40:41 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.119.24.10])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA00895;
          Sat, 17 Jan 1998 06:30:09 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net)
Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [194.198.43.36])
	by ns1.yes.no (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA02546;
	Sat, 17 Jan 1998 14:29:59 GMT
Received: (from eivind@localhost)
	by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) id PAA05681;
	Sat, 17 Jan 1998 15:29:58 +0100 (MET)
Message-ID: <19980117152958.42977@follo.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 15:29:58 +0100
From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?= <ache@nagual.pp.ru>
Cc: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no>, Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu>,
        gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, committers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: amanda port, empty PATCH_STRIP= lines causes trouble
References: <86d8hr5ioz.fsf@bitbox.follo.net> <Pine.BSF.3.96.980117163612.5724A-100000@lsd.relcom.eu.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88e
In-Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=3CPine=2EBSF=2E3=2E96=2E980117163612=2E5724A-100000=40ls?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?d=2Erelcom=2Eeu=2Enet=3E=3B_from_=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7_on_Sat=2C_Jan_17=2C_1998_at_04=3A39=3A43P?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?M_+0300?=
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

On Sat, Jan 17, 1998 at 04:39:43PM +0300, Андрей Чернов wrote:
> On 17 Jan 1998, Eivind Eklund wrote:
> 
> > Because this break support for older 2.2 machines, for one.  Besides,
> > "just making it work" without understanding the ramifications are a
> > very bad idea for important utilities (like the ports collection).
> 
> I talk about not yet released -stable, not about older 2.2 installations
> which have their own patch / bsd.port.mk

No.  They don't have their own bsd.port.mk - we've been telling them
to upgrade to the newest bsd.port.mk all the time.  IMHO, we should as
far as possible in making the active ports collection work on all
versions of 2.2 (or at least provide a painless way of making it
work).

Investigating what will be broken and what will need to change with a
merge before doing it is only prudent, if you accept this.

> All ramifications and differences clearly described in patch(1), so I see
> no needs to additionly "understand" them besides reading the manual. 

All ramifications can't be described there - I can't imagine them
having a description of how this impacts our ports collection in the
man page ;-)

Eivind.