From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Oct 10 8:34:46 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from rucus.ru.ac.za (rucus.ru.ac.za [146.231.29.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5884814C25 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 08:34:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nbm@rucus.ru.ac.za) Received: (qmail 76742 invoked by uid 1003); 10 Oct 1999 15:37:03 -0000 Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 17:37:03 +0200 From: Neil Blakey-Milner To: Mike Meyer Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: install newer version over old one... Message-ID: <19991010173703.A74118@rucus.ru.ac.za> References: <19991009101642.A80651@rucus.ru.ac.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3i In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat 1999-10-09 (13:07), Mike Meyer wrote: > :->You can't expect to have a vim-4.3.2 package and a vim5-5.0.1 > :->package. > > Question - can we expect that everyone will *eventually* move to vim > 5? Or, for my favorite example, the gtk1# ports - don't we expect that > eventually the earlier versions will vanish as other ports move to the > new ones? This has nothing to do with whether or not people _will_ upgrade, but rather about what the upgrade path _is_. If a person used vim4, there is no reason that person won't use vim5 eventually. > :->What we really need is a mechanism to show the scope of upgrades > :->- whether ssh-2.0.0 _really_ upgrades ssh-1.2.27. > > Unless "really" means "we can expect all users to move to some point > in the future", this isn't right. From what I can tell, ssh2 upgrades > ssh1 in every technical sense. They are not compatible. ssh2 needs ssh1 to be around to access sshd1. ssh1 can't talk to sshd2. Neil -- Neil Blakey-Milner nbm@rucus.ru.ac.za To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message