Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 06:30:03 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/25220: Release and Development Ports Message-ID: <200102231430.f1NEU3196352@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/25220; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg> To: s.ende@gmx.net Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/25220: Release and Development Ports Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:25:59 +0200 On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 06:50:43PM -0800, s.ende@gmx.net wrote: > > >Number: 25220 > >Category: ports > >Synopsis: Release and Development Ports > >Originator: Steve > >Release: FreeBSD-4.2 Stable with current ports > >Description: [snip] > > My problem now is, that the port maintainer (e.g. the person that submited > the port) decides, what version should be integrated into the tree. > So it happens from time to time (like now with eterm, and before with > xchat) that a previous stable release of a port gets updated to a > development version. The eterm package was version 0.8.11 (a stable > release) and now got updated to eterm 0.9.0 (a development release, > which the author does not recoment for end-users) Yes, this is a problem with some ports. [snip] > >Fix: [snip] > > 1) split the ports tree into current and stable. i don't think thats usefull, > but its a solution. I don't really see this happening.. > 2) use port-stable/ and port-(dev/current)/ dirs instead of just port/ dirs > this may be more usefull, but adds a lot more work. This is what is actually being done with some ports, when the maintainers consider it needed. G'luck, Peter -- "yields falsehood, when appended to its quotation." yields falsehood, when appended to its quotation. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102231430.f1NEU3196352>