Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 13:00:24 -0700 From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Cc: ports@freebsd.org, cvs-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Full FREEZE on ports tree Message-ID: <199510172000.NAA08606@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <199510171808.LAA15751@GndRsh.aac.dev.com> (rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* > It seems like some people just don't get it. I'm hereby declaring a * > full code freeze of the ports tree, as well as bsd.port.mk. * * The first I can agree with the second I can not (at least not in -current). * The bsd.port.mk file that is important to you is the one in the RELENG * branch. You _should_ be using a RELENG_2_1_0 system to build and test * all the ports on, thus what happens in -current should not effect your * work. * * If you are not using a RELENG_2_1_0 build system your makeing a grave * mistake IMHO. Oh of course, I'm using the 2.1 branch bsd.port.mk to build the ports. It doesn't really matter (at least now) what happens to the 2.2 branch. The problem is, there is a person committing changes to the 2.2 branch of bsd.port.mk to sync with his changes in ports. So I'm (well actually, David is) forced to pull in the changes into 2.1 so that the ports tree will build. Also, don't forget that we only have one ports tree, so an incompatibility in bsd.port.mk will result in brokenness of the ports tree in one of the branches. That's why I've been refraining from committing anything to bsd.port.mk that isn't a pure bug fix without change of functionality. It's fine if everybody can understand this and do only the right things to bsd.port.mk, but these kinds of "half stop" doesn't seem to have effect on Andrey, so I decided to call a "full stop". Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199510172000.NAA08606>