Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 20:18:11 +0200 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@scc.nl> To: obrien@FreeBSD.org Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: RFC: linux-devel naming (was Re: cvs commit: ports/emulators/linux-base-5.2...) Message-ID: <37863CE3.B3A8DFD7@scc.nl> References: <6514.931435144@axl.noc.iafrica.com> <3784953E.20F2005E@scc.nl> <19990708114649.A67400@dragon.nuxi.com> <3784FA51.639E1920@scc.nl> <19990708223740.A3633@catkin.nothing-going-on.org> <19990708220450.C29714@mad> <3785983D.EF769633@scc.nl> <19990709054512.B84634@mad> <3785D165.61AC67BC@scc.nl> <19990709104544.A92341@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David O'Brien wrote:
>
> > \begin{RFC}
> > I've not committed linux-devel yet, so now is the time to decide if it
> > should be called that way because it replaces linux_devel, or that we
> > should think of an alternative to avoid confusion with common
> > -devel/-latest tags.
> > \end{RFC}
>
> Personally I think your new port should live in `linux_devel'. It is
> effectively updates the existing port. Why rename the port name that
> people are familar with? "-devel" should be avoided.
The reason why I'm not overwriting both linux_lib and linux_devel, is that
it takes a while before all "linux using" ports are updated and/or
upgraded. It's better accepted this way than just simply overwriting a port
and at the same time breaking a dozen others. As for the underscore, I
guess I feel the same about the underscore as you do about the dot. But,
more importantly, I follow the guidelines in the handbook.
If -devel should be avoided, what do you think of linux-compile?
--
Marcel Moolenaar mailto:marcel@scc.nl
SCC Internetworking & Databases http://www.scc.nl/
Amsterdam, The Netherlands tel: +31 20 4200655
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37863CE3.B3A8DFD7>