Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:04:11 +1000 From: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org> To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Projects with multiple versions in our ports tree Message-ID: <20040812010411.GK1726@k7.mavetju> In-Reply-To: <20040811172245.I54010@ync.qbhto.arg> References: <20040811172245.I54010@ync.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 05:43:48PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > In situations where there are likely to continue to be a large number of > "fooNN" versions, "foo-devel" versions, etc, I'd like to suggest that we > actually encourage the use of "fooNN" ports, and then have "some Can you give us some examples of ports which follow the models you have been describing? I know that for example lang/tclNN always have had the version numbering, same with net/openldapNN, and that was because of the incompatibilities they were causing in either the API, the language or the program itself. And in the future these incompatibilties would keep repeating themselves, so a lang/tcl and net/openldap was never created. So an sich these ports were, despite all with the same subject/topic/target, all unique. Other ports like mail/postfix have been able to maintain compatibility (as good or bad as it went) but sometimes branched (to version 2, to version 2.1) on which snapshots were made for people who didn't dare to upgrade yet. The snapshots could live there own life further with security updates, other enhancements etc. So before you make a single rule with regarding to this, make sure you have all situations described properly. It would be very bad if half your programs suddenly break because ports/foo (which installed ports/fooXX) gets updated to ports/fooYX. Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis | Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org edwin@mavetju.org | Weblog: http://weblog.barnet.com.au/edwin/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040812010411.GK1726>