Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 18:27:43 -0400 From: Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> To: Akinori -Aki- MUSHA <knu@idaemons.org> Cc: andrews@technologist.com, shige@FreeBSD.org, FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/shells/zsh-devel Makefile ports/shells/zsh-devel/files md5 ports/shells/zsh-devel/patches patch-ad patch-ab ports/shells/zsh-devel/pkg PLIST Message-ID: <20000528182742.B10345@argon.gryphonsoft.com> In-Reply-To: <86og5q372b.wl@localhost.local.idaemons.org>; from knu@idaemons.org on Mon, May 29, 2000 at 02:42:20AM %2B0900 References: <200005271903.MAA19047@freefall.freebsd.org> <20000528094141.A4761@argon.gryphonsoft.com> <86og5q372b.wl@localhost.local.idaemons.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ Moved to -ports ] On Mon, May 29, 2000 at 02:42:20AM +0900, Akinori -Aki- MUSHA wrote: > At Sun, 28 May 2000 09:41:41 -0400, E-Dragon wrote: That's my IRC alter-nickname, not my email name. ;-) > > Cool! I'll now update shells/zsh too, since it needs updating. Any > > idea when they will merge those compdefs into zsh 3.0.x, if ever? > > I'm not sure, but considering the differences between 3.0.x's syntax > of compdefs and 3.1.x's I'd doubt if they [zsh workers] would backport > them to 3.0.x. I hadn't considered this; you're absolutely correct on this name. > As we discussed a while ago, we could just rename zsh to zsh30 and > zsh-devel to zsh31. Since zsh workers are actively maintaining on > both 3.0.x and 3.1.x braches, we might consider both of these as > "stable" products. (Actually they are stable enough already, IMO) That is fine. I can understand leaving them both in until they finally obsolete zsh 3.0.x. > I think we can rename zsh-devel to zsh31 when 3.1.7 release is out, > but not now. It seems premature if we (ask PW to) do a repocopy now > because zsh-devel is currently of a pre-release... (When it comes to > 3.1.8-beta after it becomes zsh31, we can just import the beta as > zsh31-devel. by the way) Hmm... I think it should just stay in its current form.. we can simply create a zsh31 package from the zsh-devel port.. I don't think it needs to be moved to zsh31, regardless of the package created. > Also, we will move NO_LATEST_LINK from zsh31 to zsh30 then, > considering bash1/bash2 pair as a good example to follow. Yes.. I realized that PKGNAME was the wrong solution, since it does not work with the current philosophy. Then I remembered PKGNAMESUFFIX. shells/zsh: PKGNAMESUFFIX= 30 shells/zsh-devel: PKGNAMESUFFIX= 31 Since we will make packages for both, we won't need NO_LATEST_LINK, right? Although it would be nice if we had a link from zsh.tgz to zsh31.tgz... -- Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> GCS/E/S @d- s+:+>+:- a--->+++ C++ UB++++ P+ L- E--- W+++ !N !o ?K w--- ?O M+ V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+>+++ t++ 5 X++ R+ tv+ b++>++++ DI+++ D+ G++>+++ e->++++ h! r-->+++ y? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000528182742.B10345>