Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 14:48:04 -0700 (PDT) From: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: james@nexis.net Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <199705162148.OAA06080@vader.cs.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970516172322.26498A-100000@nexis.net> (message from James FitzGibbon on Fri, 16 May 1997 17:30:13 -0400 (EDT))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* That's the OS date. I'm thinking of the version of bsd.port.mk that they * have. Well, we do update OSRELDATE more frequently than before now. But that's really not the point. * That way people who just sup ports and never get updates to stuff in * /usr/share/mk will not be able to make new ports, but will be told "Time * to Upgrade!" Whoever sups ports and doesn't get the latest /usr/share/mk (or better yet, my "2.2-stable quick upgrade kit") should be shot. Aren't there big warning signs everywhere (like in the ports page)? * In the port's Makefile, you'd put * BSD_PORT_MK_REL_REQ= 1997051600 I'm against this change. The latest ports available by sup/ftp require, by default, the latest bsd.port.mk. There really is no reason why we should go out of our way, adding that line to every single Makefile that uses a new feature of bsd.port.mk, to tell people what is stated over and over in our documentation and is so easy to "fix". (The version of the system itself is a different story, as that can't be so easily changed. That's why we go out of our way to support "top" and others.) What we should do, IMO, is to make sure people understand that they need the latest bsd.port.mk to have any chance with the latest ports. I noticed it is not stated prominently in the handbook's "ports" section, I will change that. Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199705162148.OAA06080>