Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 08:52:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Philip Hallstrom <philip@adhesivemedia.com> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.org>, Chris Piazza <cpiazza@jaxon.net>, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FYI: Missing DISTNAME for netpbm 8.4... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005030851150.48286-100000@illiad.adhesivemedia.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005021650020.44965-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > True.. but what if in your 4.1 bsd.port.mk it specified a version number, > > say 4.1. Then, in all the ports themselves there would be a defination > > for "need at least port version xxx". Then bsd.port.mk can check to see > > if it's capable of processing that particular port. > > This is what NetBSD and OpenBSD have done, but it seems like kind of an > ugly solution to me - it requires extra work when we break > backwards-compatability (must update the REQUIRES_VERSION of every > affected port and commit the changes), and is prone to being forgotten. I > didn't want to mention it because I'd hoped someone would come up with a > better idea. Hmm... maybe I don't understand the ports well enough, but didn't you have to update every affected port and commit the change to remove DISTNAME??? Anyway, I'll leave it to you guys :) 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0005030851150.48286-100000>