Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 19:41:17 +0400 (MSD) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.ru> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu>, Kevin Eliuk <kevin_eliuk@sunshine.net>, FreeBSD-Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, peter@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Error installing pine-3.96 Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970331193630.530D-100000@nagual.ru> In-Reply-To: <11118.859817826@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > I'm not necessarily advocating going the multi-branch route and > imposing the same disciplines on ports/ that we have on src/, either > (though that may eventually be necessary and I'm not saying anything > either way on that yet), but it would be nice if ports maintainers > made a special effort to see that a port compiled under *both* > branches of the OS. Most porters are probably running 2.2 anyway, and > if thud will start staying up more than 4-5 hours at a time, we can > have them test the 3.0 operability there. Maybe nice idea in general, but personally I not run 2.2 and can't spend a time to compile test them under remote 2.2 box, so somebody else please. BTW (returning to Subject:) is "install -d" not in 2.2? I think it was there... -- Andrey A. Chernov <ache@null.net> http://www.nagual.ru/~ache/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970331193630.530D-100000>