From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 3 19:48:12 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1513919; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 19:48:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8770C2EDB; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 19:48:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.22] (unknown [130.255.26.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7AC43600; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 13:47:48 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <5276A847.2030906@marino.st> Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 20:47:19 +0100 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tijl Coosemans Subject: Re: svn commit: r332606 - in head/lang/nqc: . files References: <201311031137.rA3Bb32U043731@svn.freebsd.org> <20131103202949.41cbc7c6@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> In-Reply-To: <20131103202949.41cbc7c6@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 19:48:12 -0000 On 11/3/2013 20:29, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 11:37:03 +0000 (UTC) John Marino wrote: >> * make use of OSVERSION for FreeBSD only > > Are there any guidelines for this? Should we start making all > OSVERSION uses FreeBSD only? By definition, OSVERSION is only valid for FreeBSD, so the correct thing to do always is add OPSYS to the condition. That said, there's been no official statement to that effect. I think the topic of OSVERSION needs to be explored in general but nothing has been decided yet. Thanks, John