From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Mar 16 13: 3:43 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE96037BCBD; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:03:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id NAA82213; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:03:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:03:41 -0800 (PST) From: Kris Kennaway To: Matthew Lariz Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Make files.. (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Matthew Lariz wrote: > Now here's my question. If most of the ports are indifferent to the > system version, and the bsd.ports.mk file is applied globally, wouldn't it > make more practical sense to put it in the make files for the individual > ports? This is the route OpenBSD (and I believe NetBSD) have gone - they have something like a REQUIRE_VERSION which holds the $FreeBSD$ tag of bsd.port.mk the port requires to build. Of course theres the chicken-and-egg problem of having to have a bsd.port.mk new enough to understand what REQUIRE_VERSION actually means, but thats a once-off and could be handled by our existing "too old" mechanism to force users to upgrade to the new one. With a bit of work we could probably go that way as well. Kris P.S. Installing the FreeBSD upgrade kit from www.freebsd.org/ports would solve your problem of "too old a system". ---- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message