From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 22 02:39:36 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB80B37B401 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vectors.cx (manifold.vectors.cx [66.180.241.86]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B72F43FE0 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:39:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from monkey@vectors.cx) Received: from vectors.cx (0a1c233753fdf7069c0a99f0e87c1259@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vectors.cx (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h3M9eLef081885; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:40:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from monkey@vectors.cx) Received: (from monkey@localhost) by vectors.cx (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h3M9eKM2081884; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:40:20 -0700 From: Adam Weinberger To: Gary Jennejohn Message-ID: <20030422094019.GB25227@vectors.cx> References: <200304220850.h3M8ouGr003174@peedub.jennejohn.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-action=pgp-signed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200304220850.h3M8ouGr003174@peedub.jennejohn.org> X-Editor: Vim 6.1 http://www.vim.org X-Mailer: Mutt 1.5 http://www.mutt.org X-PGP-Key: http://www.vectors.cx/pgp.key.txt X-URL: http://www.vectors.cx User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: the future of xemacs21 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 09:39:37 -0000 -----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-----