Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:20:19 -0500 From: "Dan Langille" <dan@langille.org> To: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: varying PORTVERSION with OSVERSION Message-ID: <43AAB623.9327.14A39D97@dan.langille.org> In-Reply-To: <20051222191516.GA31197@soaustin.net> References: <43AA4A03.27311.12FD3FCC@dan.langille.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 22 Dec 2005 at 13:15, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 06:38:59AM -0500, Dan Langille wrote: > > It'll be interesting to produce quite a bit of design and code to > > cater for just a few ports. > > As for portsmon, I plan to not worry about it :-) I don't really think > it's worth the work to track it for these edge cases. (Of course, portsmon > evaluates everything assuming i386, but that's another story). For FreshPorts, it does confuse the users: http://www.freshports.org/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=1078&t=1078 I'll try for evaluating BROKEN and FORBIDDEN for all OSVERSION and ARCH values first. Then I'll look at whether or not it's feasible to worry about silly situations such as this. -- Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/ BSDCan - The Technical BSD Conference - http://www.bsdcan.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43AAB623.9327.14A39D97>