From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 17 20:35:27 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BE3016A401; Thu, 17 May 2007 20:35:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A5713C46A; Thu, 17 May 2007 20:35:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FD621A4D82; Thu, 17 May 2007 13:36:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3129D51406; Thu, 17 May 2007 16:35:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:35:26 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway To: Doug Barton Message-ID: <20070517203525.GA10518@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <463F7236.4080108@FreeBSD.org> <20070507184231.GA50639@xor.obsecurity.org> <20070507201448.GA52651@xor.obsecurity.org> <20070507204414.GA53358@xor.obsecurity.org> <20070507205850.GA34916@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20070507220659.GC78665@graf.pompo.net> <20070507222146.GA57768@xor.obsecurity.org> <464CB5AA.7040304@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <464CB5AA.7040304@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Brooks Davis , Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Saving old shared libs (Was: Re: HEADS UP: xorg upgrade plans) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 20:35:27 -0000 On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:06:02PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > At the same time, I think it's probably worthwhile to examine what the > goals of the ports system are in this regard. If the goal is to always > provide a fail-safe upgrade path for users then perhaps we should be > talking about moving that support into the ports infrastructure, > rather than talking about adding it to all the different upgrade tools. This is true, and some first steps are already in progress. Kris