Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:28:49 +0200 From: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de> To: h h <aakuusta@gmail.com> Cc: ade@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: ports/ and 10.0-CURRENT Message-ID: <4E818941.7060006@zedat.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <86mxdqfq69.fsf@gmail.com> References: <20110926230335.041fd9aa@lab.lovett.com> <CAN6yY1t5wJ3%2B4LG=upL6sR7tSNU6Uhx-y=L0AJm6rKFsKnvPiQ@mail.gmail.com> <86mxdqfq69.fsf@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09/27/11 08:35, h h wrote: > Kevin Oberman<kob6558@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett<ade@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >>> With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be >>> expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while. >>> >>> The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose something completely >>> at random) assuming that FreeBSD would never jump to a double-digit >>> major version number, and as such, various regexps for "freebsd1*" (ie: >>> FreeBSD 1.1.x) are now matching "freebsd10". > [...] >> >> aDe, >> >> Could an entry to this effect be added to UPDATING (with a matching >> entry when ports/ is "unbroken"). > > Also mention a workaround, e.g. > > $ export UNAME_r='9.9-BLAH' Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin 10 'X' for their tenth version of their operating system ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E818941.7060006>