From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Jan 18 06:29:29 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA09044 for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 06:29:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from baloon.mimi.com (sjx-ca126-27.ix.netcom.com [207.92.177.219]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA09015 for ; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 06:29:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu) Received: (from asami@localhost) by baloon.mimi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA13165; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 05:05:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from asami) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 05:05:22 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199801181305.FAA13165@baloon.mimi.com> To: ac199@hwcn.org CC: ache@nagual.pp.ru, ports@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: (message from Tim Vanderhoek on Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:08:57 -0500 (EST)) Subject: Re: bsd.port.mk patch for review From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * From: Tim Vanderhoek * > We can have different bsd.port.mk for -current and 2.2, but I'd like * > to avoid that. * * Even if the appropriate patch flag is merged into 2.2.5-stable, * you'll need to include a patch binary in _all_ future * 222upgrade-9#.##.## files. That is an even bigger problem than incompatible bsd.port.mk. I can't make users' systems incompatible with the releases they are upgrading from. Satoshi