From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Dec 14 13: 0:10 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A7514C0F for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 13:00:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id NAA08646; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 13:00:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 13:00:03 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199912142100.NAA08646@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: "R. Imura" Subject: Re: ports/15434: new port: devel/kdevelop Reply-To: "R. Imura" Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR ports/15434; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "R. Imura" To: andrews@technologist.com Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/15434: new port: devel/kdevelop Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 05:53:05 +0900 > The long-awaited kdevelop port. I would like to > request that R. Imura review this port, if at all > possible. o The port depends on many other ports. Year, if they are installed, kdevelop will be more power-full and we will be happy, but they are not really **nessesary**. How about showing these ports by pkg/MESSAGE to recommend people to install? o If you say it is BROKEN for -stable( < 400004), defining USE_NEWGCC doesn't make any sense. (I know it may have a sence in the future.) I thought it being funny. The port seems almost fine =) --- R. Imura To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message