From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Jun 30 2:40:10 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87DD937BA4E for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 02:40:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id CAA78366; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 02:40:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 02:40:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200006300940.CAA78366@freefall.freebsd.org> To: ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Maxim Sobolev Subject: Re: ports/19594: update port: qrash Reply-To: Maxim Sobolev Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR ports/19594; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Maxim Sobolev To: Trevor Johnson Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/19594: update port: qrash Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:31:18 +0300 Trevor Johnson wrote: > > Why we should to? AFAIK, SDL is known not to work with FeeBSD releases < 4.0, so > > You're the maintainer of the sdl and sdl-ports ports. Why haven't you > added BROKEN= lines to them so everyone will know this? > > > if we will update the port to use SDL instead of plain X11 we will loose > > portability while would gain little or nothing. > > The SDL version doesn't ask the user about sound but rather tries to > detect whether it's available. Also the video looks a little smoother to > me. It seems I wasted my time though. :( Please close this PR. Alternatively, we could make a new port qrash-sdl if you think that it is worth it. -Maxim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message