Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:11:52 -0700 From: "Roger Marquis" <marquis@roble.com> To: "Lowell Gilbert" <freebsd-ports-local@be-well.ilk.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports requires pkg 1.6.0, but 1.5.6 is the latest available In-Reply-To: <44bncjsn5d.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> References: <5609D023.70402@bluerosetech.com> <CAN6yY1tzo6QobOKqB53yKahC42rS3OnLMGKVTVnDOL%2BU3QfLhw@mail.gmail.com> <560A47FE.6010507@bluerosetech.com> <560AAD43.5000207@unfs.us> <560AF5CF.2080909@bluerosetech.com> <20150929213632.GA23442@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <44bncjsn5d.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>
| previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
For the vast majority of ports and packages it won't make any difference whether they are installed are from head, quarterly and/or archives (in my experience, options dependencies aside). Isn't the issue here a dependency on the version of 'pkg' being enforced by 'pkg'? If so shouldn't this be fixed in 'pkg'? Roger Marquis Lowell Gilbert wrote: > Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >> The change that was made was having the default packages on releases point to >> quarterly branch of the ports tree. This was noted in the release note. > > Yes, but that really only helps people who already understand version > control. I'll try to come up with some text to add to the Handbook, > which currently assumes (for ports) that there is only head.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?>