From owner-freebsd-ports Sun May 28 15:28:44 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from server1.mich.com (server1.mich.com [198.108.16.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8442C37B56D; Sun, 28 May 2000 15:28:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from will@almanac.yi.org) Received: from almanac.yi.org (pm006-043.dialup.bignet.net [64.79.81.27]) by server1.mich.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA05167; Sun, 28 May 2000 18:28:22 -0400 Received: by almanac.yi.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 32B2F19B6; Sun, 28 May 2000 18:27:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 18:27:43 -0400 From: Will Andrews To: Akinori -Aki- MUSHA Cc: andrews@technologist.com, shige@FreeBSD.org, FreeBSD Ports 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> References: <200005271903.MAA19047@freefall.freebsd.org> <20000528094141.A4761@argon.gryphonsoft.com> <86og5q372b.wl@localhost.local.idaemons.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <86og5q372b.wl@localhost.local.idaemons.org>; from knu@idaemons.org on Mon, May 29, 2000 at 02:42:20AM +0900 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [ 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 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