Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 06:35:39 +0000 From: Adam David <adam@veda.is> To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bsd.port.mk on freefall Message-ID: <199612260631.GAA10339@veda.is> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Dec 1996 22:02:56 PST." <199612260602.WAA04047@baloon.mimi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> * freefall still has bsd.port.mk from 4.Dec, while thud has it from 17.Dec. > * One thing this affects is the md5 checksum file for ports with DIST_SUBDIR. > * Since ports track current, shouldn't freefall be brought up to date in this? > > I don't think so. freefall doesn't run -current, and it is not > intended as a ports testing machine. > > Satoshi The problem I see with this is that freefall is where the commits occur, and I for one would find it more convenient to do 'make makesum' without paying an extra visit to thud. More to the point though... which version of bsd.port.mk will ship with 2.2 and is there any reason for it to be different from the latest in -current? It would seem that only absolutely necessary minimum differences should exist between 2.2 and 3.0-current(2.2-release-date), and it would be worthwhile for both freefall and thud to have the latest appropriate version installed. Adam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612260631.GAA10339>