From owner-freebsd-ports Tue May 2 16:51:55 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 A60E837BB51; Tue, 2 May 2000 16:51:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA48922; Tue, 2 May 2000 16:51:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 16:51:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: Philip Hallstrom Cc: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami , Chris Piazza , ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FYI: Missing DISTNAME for netpbm 8.4... 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 Tue, 2 May 2000, Philip Hallstrom wrote: > True.. but what if in your 4.1 bsd.port.mk it specified a version number, > say 4.1. Then, in all the ports themselves there would be a defination > for "need at least port version xxx". Then bsd.port.mk can check to see > if it's capable of processing that particular port. This is what NetBSD and OpenBSD have done, but it seems like kind of an ugly solution to me - it requires extra work when we break backwards-compatability (must update the REQUIRES_VERSION of every affected port and commit the changes), and is prone to being forgotten. I didn't want to mention it because I'd hoped someone would come up with a better idea. Kris ---- 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