Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2016 19:08:15 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 206941] devel/capstone: adding new port for devel/capstone4 and adapting devel/capstone Message-ID: <bug-206941-13-Jud6yOIQw4@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-206941-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-206941-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D206941 --- Comment #9 from oleksii.tsai@gmail.com --- (In reply to Kurt Jaeger from comment #8) I don't have any objections. The reason i went this way is I was thinking a= bout devel/capstone tracking latest stable version. devel/capstone4 is sort of an exception (workaround) as it not stable yet, however, already in use. I gue= ss our options are: 1) devel/capstone tracks stable releases (v3 for now), devel/capstone4 beco= mes essentially devel/capstone-devel or 2) rename devel/capstone to devel/capstone3, keep devel/capstone4 and then = keep adding new ports for any new major version. Option 1 is easier on porter's side, however, looking at capstone project t= hey actually have various development branches which drastically differ, so not clear which one to track. Option 2 provides more variety to users and some flexibility to port maintainers in case there are some outdated ports that use (or will use) capstone. And actually nothing stops having devel/capstone in this case too. Option 2 seems better to me now. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-206941-13-Jud6yOIQw4>