From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Aug 22 11:43:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA25136 for ports-outgoing; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hwcn.org (main.hwcn.org [199.212.94.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA25131 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:43:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (ac199@james.hwcn.org [199.212.94.66]) by hwcn.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA14358; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:43:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (ac199@localhost) by james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA09766; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:43:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca: ac199 owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 14:43:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek X-Sender: ac199@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca Reply-To: hoek@hwcn.org To: Warner Losh cc: Satoshi Asami , fenner@parc.xerox.com, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Versioning bsd.port.mk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Warner Losh wrote: > Hmmm. I'm not sure that that is even foolproof. If you are making > changes to the bsd.port.mk file while I'm making changes to the > gerbils port. My changes get in first, and then yours. My changes > depend on version n-1 of the bsd.port.mk file, but version n breaks I think it's necessary to assume that version n+1 of bsd.port.mk will work with a Makefile designed for version n. If you use strict version n for version n matching it'll become difficult to keep everything sync'd (for every revision of bsd.port.mk, each Makefile (or files/VER) would need updating, plus expected user frustration at having to upgrade their ports subsystem considerably more often than necessary). I think if you want to catch cases where a Makefile depending on bsd.port.mk version n-1 doesn't work with bsd.port.mk version n you have to use either a feature-for-feature compatibility check (yuck) or what Bill suggested -- just print out a warning "try upgrading bsd.port.mk??" on errors. The one problem there is with matching RCS strings, which I mentioned before, is catching the case where a port is updated but bsd.port.mk isn't touched. Like I said, then, if you're willing to let that case slide.... [although I still prefer Itojun's last patch to all other solutions :-] -- Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never! tIM...HOEk