Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:40:20 -0700 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@freebsd.org> To: Gary Jennejohn <garyj@jennejohn.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: the future of xemacs21 Message-ID: <20030422094019.GB25227@vectors.cx> In-Reply-To: <200304220850.h3M8ouGr003174@peedub.jennejohn.org> References: <200304220850.h3M8ouGr003174@peedub.jennejohn.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >> (04.22.2003 @ 0150 PST): Gary Jennejohn said, in 0.9K: << > The question now is, what do we do with xemacs21? xemacs-21.1.14, > which is what's in xemacs21, is now considered historical. But > there are so many other ports which depend on xemacs21 that it may > well be a good idea to keep xemacs21 around and create new ports > to track xemacs. > > So I'd like to get a consensus. Do we delete xemacs21 after all the > ports which depend on it are updated to depend on xemacs? Or do we > want to keep xemacs21 and add new ports to depend on the new xemacs? >> end of "the future of xemacs21" from Gary Jennejohn << Performing a sweep of the ports tree and updating all xemacs21 references to point to xemacs is a simple matter. Every time a port is repocopied into a directory that specifies a version number, this ends up happening. IMO the right thing to do is branch the OLD version into its own directory, and keep the original directory as the current. For example, branch kde2 stuff into x11/kde2, and make x11/kde be version 3. The FreeBSD/GNOME project is about to run into this problem, too. # Adam - -- Adam Weinberger vectors.cx >> adam@vectors.cx FreeBSD.org << adamw@FreeBSD.ORG #vim:set ts=8: 8-char tabs prevent tooth decay. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+pQ4Do8KM2ULHQ/0RAvgHAJ0TQJ1sIAdH49ZPezQzUate6/mXfACdG+Id VSGNzOxDqGBqg2E7XQTcKag= =f+Rl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030422094019.GB25227>