Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2017 14:54:56 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 216780] Update Port: lang/sbcl Message-ID: <bug-216780-13-mw7rkD5v7k@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-216780-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-216780-13@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=3D216780 --- Comment #5 from John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org> --- Fine by me. If you still insist on your approach after breaking several po= rts and an entire platform (which signifies zero quality assurance was done on downstream ports) then it's best that the port returns to how it was before. The word "legacy" is wrong too. Right now the older bootstraps are sufficient. If they get too old, it's a simple matter of repackaging the latest SBCL fr= om FreeBSD 10.3. This is the most correct method of building a compiler.=20 You never gave your reasons for the change. I have to assume you just thou= ght it was easier to maintain that way. Maintainership is hard sometimes. --=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-216780-13-mw7rkD5v7k>