Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:16:58 -0700 From: Jared Barneck <rhyous@gmail.com> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Romain_Tarti=E8re?= <romain@freebsd.org> Cc: mono@freebsd.org, James Colannino <crankycyclops@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Building boo-0.9.4.9 Message-ID: <CANtyY_KwRSxSd9XFp__9_PFCyY4%2BSH9Ze8x5dS3K=voa0SahAw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20111116153640.GB80608@FreeBSD.org> References: <4EB58FD3.8090209@gmail.com> <CANtyY_%2B-y4VD2X9TkQY2nr-Yu5m92QLeQNhTxnnr5%2BLbLG75dA@mail.gmail.com> <4EBEC615.4080609@gmail.com> <CANtyY_%2BRkHJQsDps0jrRar70oM7HEgLZVmpuC4JNWCBon24w9w@mail.gmail.com> <20111116153640.GB80608@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2011/11/16 Romain Tarti=E8re <romain@freebsd.org> > Hello > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 04:17:39PM -0700, Jared Barneck wrote: > > I don't remember why portshaker exists over using the standard ports an= d > > keeping the standard ports updated. > > Basically, the ports should be considered as stable (hahum...) and I > consider stuff in bsd-sharp as "early stage" and I don't mind breaking > everything in this repo. If you have patches I would be pleased to > apply them. I prefer patches against BSD# since it is supposed to be > more up-to-date but as a last ressort, a patch against the ports is > better than no patch at all. Ok, I understood you to mean this: Just like FreeBSD has Release, Stable, Current, the normal FreeBSD ports tree is considered release for all Mono ports on FreeBSD and everything in portshaker is considered stable/current. Did I understand correctly?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANtyY_KwRSxSd9XFp__9_PFCyY4%2BSH9Ze8x5dS3K=voa0SahAw>