Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 15:45:09 -0800 (PST) From: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: jfieber@indiana.edu Cc: ache@nagual.ru, kevin_eliuk@sunshine.net, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, obrien@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Error installing pine-3.96 Message-ID: <199703312345.PAA03019@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970331080026.290I-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu> (message from John Fieber on Mon, 31 Mar 1997 08:14:56 -0500 (EST))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Is it just me, or is there something fundamentally amiss with the * principle that ports are only supported on an unreleased version * of the operating system used by a minority of the user base? Andrey is wrong. The ports tree now supports both 2.2 and 3.0 (I have been very careful of that when I fixed all those ports broken by the Lite2 merge), if something doesn't work with either system, please report. Porters don't necessarily need to test it on both systems, but there are enough people using either that can fix them if something goes incompatible. As long as the 2.2 branch doesn't outlive its planned life expectancy (that is, no more than 6 months, so we can release 3.0 at the beginning of next year), we plan to fully support it until 2.2.5 is released. 2.1.x/2.2 is a totally different issue, that branch has lingered way too long at it was impossible to support it together with -current (2.2 at that time). * If the ports mechanisim (bsd.port.mk) is the problem, can we * provide a "port system upgrade" port? As long as you grab bsd.port[.subdir].mk from RELENG_2_2, you should be fine. There will also be a packages-stable directory going up on ftp.freebsd.org shortly (Right, David? :) for package users who want the latest bits. Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703312345.PAA03019>