From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 3 20:02:01 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D74BEFA5; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 20:02:01 +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 ACAC62F91; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 20:02:01 +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 F3C9C438BC; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:01:43 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <5276AB96.4050301@marino.st> Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 21:01:26 +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: Bryan Drewery Subject: Re: svn commit: r332606 - in head/lang/nqc: . files References: <201311031137.rA3Bb32U043731@svn.freebsd.org> <20131103202949.41cbc7c6@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <5276A847.2030906@marino.st> <5276AA8C.5000205@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <5276AA8C.5000205@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Tijl Coosemans , 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 20:02:02 -0000 On 11/3/2013 20:57, Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 11/3/2013 1:47 PM, John Marino wrote: > Couldn't you just change OSVERSION in dports' bsd.port.mk to be 999999? > This would be much better than needing to update all ports. I'd say 99% > or more of people are only considering FreeBSD when writing or > maintaining ports. That is exactly the current case. However, that in no way fixes everything. There are many cases where this is the wrong thing for DragonFly. I never asked to update all the ports, but it would be nice not to continue to add more of these without OPSYS. John