Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:44:37 -0800 (PST) From: Jean-Marc Zucconi <jmz@FreeBSD.org> To: Andrea Campi <andrea@webcom.it> Cc: will@physics.purdue.edu, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: -CURRENT and XFree86 4.0.2 problem Message-ID: <200102011744.f11Hibe95917@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20010201133551.A1256@webcom.it> References: <20010123101200.B542@naver.co.id> <20010131115547.C2268@webcom.it> <200101311336.f0VDaTk81098@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010131152541.F2268@webcom.it> <20010201050902.L479@puck.firepipe.net> <20010201133551.A1256@webcom.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> Andrea Campi writes: > Yes I will, but again, I was making a different point. We have two revisions > of a lot of other ports. Would it be so horrible to also have XFree86-4 and > XFree86-4-current or something like that. XFree86-4 is not XFree86-4-current. This is the latest release from XFree86.org. If you have problems with the software complain to XFree86 guys. > Come on - we're talking about a BUG. If people can't trust ports to be > working on their very common, run of the mill, branded harware, after they > spend a long time compiling something as big as X, this is going to work > against FreeBSD. That's not what I'm used to seeing here. > Next time, 4.0.3 could work ONLY on the maintainer hardware, and not only > we could discover days or weeks later, but nobody is going to care? I don't > think this is the way to go. > I am simply proposing to have a broader testing base. I am volunteering to > help with that. I don't see this as simply complaining. Go to XFree86.org and become a developper. Do not confuse 'maintaining a port' and 'maintaining a software'. Jean-Marc -- Jean-Marc Zucconi -- PGP Key: finger jmz@FreeBSD.org [KeyID: 400B38E9] 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?200102011744.f11Hibe95917>