Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 09:22:33 +0900 From: "Akinori -Aki- MUSHA" <knu@idaemons.org> To: andrews@technologist.com Cc: shige@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org 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: <86g0r2qk6u.wl@localhost.local.idaemons.org> In-Reply-To: In your message of "Sun, 28 May 2000 18:27:43 -0400" <20000528182742.B10345@argon.gryphonsoft.com> References: <200005271903.MAA19047@freefall.freebsd.org> <20000528094141.A4761@argon.gryphonsoft.com> <86og5q372b.wl@localhost.local.idaemons.org> <20000528182742.B10345@argon.gryphonsoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Sun, 28 May 2000 18:27:43 -0400,
Will wrote:
>
> [ 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. ;-)
Oops. To remember who's who on that IRC channel, I've been using the
IRC nick as an alias of each person... No offense intended. ;)
Now that I'm sure I remember yours, I just changed it. :)
> > 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.
The question is if we should have both (for example) 3.1.7 release and
3.1.8-{beta,pre} at a time. What if 3.1.7 is rock stable when
3.1.8-beta-2 is kind of broken? (of course given that 3.0.8 isn't
obsolete at that time)
Anyway we can think it when the time comes..
> > 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...
Right. I think as long as both zsh30 and zsh31 are stable, neither of
the two needs NO_LATEST_LINK by definition:
<Excerpt from bsd.port.mk>
NO_LATEST_LINK - Do not install the "Latest" link for package. Define
this if this port is a beta version of another
stable port which is also in the tree.
</Excerpt from bsd.port.mk>
So as to satisfy this, I think we'll need zsh30, zsh31 and
zsh31-devel. :)
--
/
/__ __
/ ) ) ) ) /
Akinori -Aki- MUSHA aka / (_ / ( (__( @ idaemons.org / FreeBSD.org
"We're only at home when we're on the run, on the wing, on the fly"
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86g0r2qk6u.wl>