Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 00:07:19 +0200 (EET) From: Ville Eerola <Ville.Eerola@vehome.pp.sci.fi> To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Cc: max@wide.ad.jp, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-ports@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/mail/fetchmail Makefile ports/mail/fetchmail/filesmd5 Message-ID: <199612292207.AAA00858@h.ve.sci.fi> In-Reply-To: <199612290016.QAA16189@baloon.mimi.com> References: <199612282149.XAA00485@h.ve.sci.fi> <199612290016.QAA16189@baloon.mimi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Satoshi Asami writes: > * Well... I have somewhat mixed feelings about this. For the current > * situation it is ok, but who knows what esr will do when we reach 2.9, > * and we begin approaching fetchmail-3.0? Maybe it is best to do the > * change now, and if the patchlevels start reappearing change it back > * again. > > I thought about that too, but IMO we shouldn't have used the ".0" > patchlevel anyway. We could have just used x.y, then x.y.1 and x.y.2 > and so on if (and only if) the author starts adding patches (o' the day). Well, this is perhaps the cleanest way to go. In any case it applies to the current situation already (now that max did the change...) ;-) So, let's use this approach in the future for the fetchmail port. Regards, Ville -- Ville Eerola | Powered by ve@sci.fi | FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612292207.AAA00858>