Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 07:08:40 -0600 (MDT) From: Brian Handy <handy@lambic.physics.montana.edu> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@scc.nl> Cc: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/emulators/linux-base-5.2 - Imported sources Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9907080701480.58568-100000@lambic.physics.montana.edu> In-Reply-To: <3784A0E8.C0394E82@scc.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Yes, and have paid special attention to the section about Package Names. >The language is 'linux'. The name is 'base'. No compiled specifics and the >version number is 5.2. Makes sense, don't you think. Where does it say in >the handbook that I should not use version numbers in directory names? IMHO, I don't think it's any more wrong than the 17 netscape ports with have, replete with version numbers. I can imagine a reason to want 5.2 over 6.0, I still don't understand why we have all the netscape ports. There are other examples. I believe a2ps is still a versioned port. I can't explain that for a second, but it seems quite reasonable to want various versions of binary ports like this available. 5.2 is based on Redhat 5.2. 6.0 is based on Redhat 6.0. Neither of these are -devel or -stable or -whatever ports. I suggest there is sufficient precedence in this case, and the version numbers should ride. Brian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" 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.4.10.9907080701480.58568-100000>