From owner-freebsd-ports Wed May 3 8:51: 1 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from illiad.adhesivemedia.com (illiad.adhesivemedia.com [207.202.159.74]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D89DE37BD91; Wed, 3 May 2000 08:50:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from philip@adhesivemedia.com) Received: from localhost (philip@localhost) by illiad.adhesivemedia.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA48307; Wed, 3 May 2000 08:52:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from philip@adhesivemedia.com) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 08:52:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Philip Hallstrom To: Kris Kennaway Cc: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami , Chris Piazza , ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FYI: Missing DISTNAME for netpbm 8.4... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > 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