From owner-freebsd-ports Thu May 4 15:37: 3 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from rock.ghis.net (rock.ghis.net [209.222.164.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE0137C2BD; Thu, 4 May 2000 15:36:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from will@blackdawn.com) Received: from argon.blackdawn.com (04-103.dial.008.popsite.net [209.69.197.103]) by rock.ghis.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA93189; Thu, 4 May 2000 15:36:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by argon.blackdawn.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 62174194D; Tue, 2 May 2000 07:59:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 07:59:05 -0400 From: Will Andrews To: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami Cc: Philip Hallstrom , Chris Piazza , ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FYI: Missing DISTNAME for netpbm 8.4... Message-ID: <20000502075905.E392@argon.blackdawn.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from asami@FreeBSD.ORG on Tue, May 02, 2000 at 01:28:58AM -0700 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 01:28:58AM -0700, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote: > I've thought about adding some sort of "timeout" in bsd.port.mk, so > users will have to upgrade their ports-base collection from time to > time, to ensure they will all have a reasonably new bsd.port.mk. What > do you guys think? Isn't this already accomplished by the PORTMKVERSION variable (Which really shouldn't be limited to forcing people to use "upgrade packages" IMO) ? -- Will Andrews GCS/E/S @d- s+:+>+:- a--->+++ C++ UB++++ P+ L- E--- W+++ !N !o ?K w--- ?O M+ V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+>+++ t++ 5 X++ R+ tv+ b++>++++ DI+++ D+ G++>+++ e->++++ h! r-->+++ y? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message