From owner-freebsd-openoffice@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 18 19:04:22 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E952316A47E for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:04:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gofdpo-freebsd-openoffice@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1097C43D79 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:04:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gofdpo-freebsd-openoffice@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GPOPN-0003Ls-Cu for freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:03:57 +0200 Received: from p548fc4ce.dip.t-dialin.net ([84.143.196.206]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:03:57 +0200 Received: from rotkap by p548fc4ce.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:03:57 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org From: Heino Tiedemann Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:03:14 +0200 Organization: yes Lines: 49 Message-ID: References: <200609171256.24488.nb_root@videotron.ca> <02c0u3-ui41.ln1@news.t-online.com> <200609171720.59091.nb_root@videotron.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p548fc4ce.dip.t-dialin.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (berkeley-unix) X-Face: v6Lci{Mw=kwHf$`7C?L-U#BHn7O\wqF-1qg#Vk%}nUQv\i^mM/.p=wU+cr)yXf#Ob+foOOxW; ir"QI!|25wG3`ywF)yh~@V.kKtr.qp+v.R; w?c@ZzM#!'/7r_+)$NjMN:]qo-]`&z~KlP}|cERO'%s9":6\ZnN/O Subject: Re: Why there is a newer OOo port than the binary? X-BeenThere: freebsd-openoffice@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: rotkap@gmx.de List-Id: Porting OpenOffice to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:04:23 -0000 Nicolas Blais wrote: >> > 2.0.4 is not officially released yet. >> > The one in the ports tree is a release >> > candidate. I assume a 2.0.4 binary will be made when 2.0.4 goes out of >> > RC. Anyway, there are problems with 2.0.4 so you are still better off >> > with 2.0.3 right now... >> >> Too me Okay, but the pkg-version output is annoying. >> >> Why the 2.0.4 canditate is allready in editors/openoffice.org-2.0? >> >> Shouldn't it be in editors/openoffice.org-2.0-devel? Then the >> portscollection and the installed package will be the same. >> >> Too mee it looks, that the OpenOffice.org port is the only one, who >> "breakes" with the convention between "XYZ" and "XYZ-devel" ports. >> >> Heino > > Actually, it doesn't really break the convention. The openoffice-2.0-devel > port is based on the latest OO source tree. This means that it's pointing > towards 2.1. Since the source is always changing (in development), it would > not be a good release candidate (for testing) prior to a 2.0.X release. > > In simpler words, the RC are correctly put in openoffice-2.0 so that people > (like me) can test and point out the problems of a frozen code tree (or > release candidate) prior to the release of 2.0.X, contrary to -devel which is > always in development. Okay, I Understand. But, it is not good, to put rel-candidates into the stable tree. Maybe another port subtree is the solution? At least your explanation sounds like.. Maybe editors/openoffice.org-2.0-rc OR editors/openoffice.org-2.0-milestones Please anderstand also my point of view: I never can do "portupgrade -a", because of the "outdated" OOo-Port (I do not like to kompile OOo. It takes to much time, and several times it has failed). Heino