From owner-freebsd-openoffice@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 17 21:21:15 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F69A16A557 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:21:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nb_root@videotron.ca) Received: from relais.videotron.ca (relais.videotron.ca [24.201.245.36]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B09943D76 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:21:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nb_root@videotron.ca) Received: from clk01a ([24.202.77.103]) by VL-MH-MR002.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-2.05 (built Apr 28 2005)) with ESMTP id <0J5R00KKU9YZJ490@VL-MH-MR002.ip.videotron.ca> for freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 17:20:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 17:20:54 -0400 From: Nicolas Blais In-reply-to: <02c0u3-ui41.ln1@news.t-online.com> To: freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org Message-id: <200609171720.59091.nb_root@videotron.ca> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/signed; boundary=nextPart1632083.vP5vusIiVB; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <200609171256.24488.nb_root@videotron.ca> <02c0u3-ui41.ln1@news.t-online.com> User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 Subject: Re: Why there is a newer OOo port than the binary? X-BeenThere: freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting OpenOffice to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:21:15 -0000 --nextPart1632083.vP5vusIiVB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline > > 2.0.4 is not officially released yet. > > The one in the ports tree is a release > > candidate. I assume a 2.0.4 binary will be made when 2.0.4 goes out of > > RC. Anyway, there are problems with 2.0.4 so you are still better off > > with 2.0.3 right now... > > Too me Okay, but the pkg-version output is annoying. > > Why the 2.0.4 canditate is allready in editors/openoffice.org-2.0? > > Shouldn't it be in editors/openoffice.org-2.0-devel? Then the > portscollection and the installed package will be the same. > > Too mee it looks, that the OpenOffice.org port is the only one, who > "breakes" with the convention between "XYZ" and "XYZ-devel" ports. > > Heino Actually, it doesn't really break the convention. The openoffice-2.0-devel= =20 port is based on the latest OO source tree. This means that it's pointing=20 towards 2.1. Since the source is always changing (in development), it would= =20 not be a good release candidate (for testing) prior to a 2.0.X release. In simpler words, the RC are correctly put in openoffice-2.0 so that people= =20 (like me) can test and point out the problems of a frozen code tree (or=20 release candidate) prior to the release of 2.0.X, contrary to -devel which = is=20 always in development. Hope this explanation helps,=20 Nicolas. =2D-=20 =46reeBSD 7.0-CURRENT #0: Sun Sep 17 10:21:02 EDT 2006 =20 nicblais@clk01a:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/CLK01A=20 PGP? : http://www.clkroot.net/security/nb_root.asc --nextPart1632083.vP5vusIiVB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBFDbw74wTBlvcsbJURAqNnAJ980aZheecpqlJTeU3+iX+BXqqshACfWNvc NdMeHh+DKvaOl3ac5mi0qHI= =RnDJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1632083.vP5vusIiVB--