Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 09:44:23 +0200 From: Palle Girgensohn <girgen@FreeBSD.org> To: Greg Lewis <glewis@eyesbeyond.com>, martinko <martinkov@pobox.sk> Cc: Massimo Lusetti <mlusetti@gmail.com>, Dennis Berger <db@nipsi.de>, freebsd-java@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: New JDK release Message-ID: <E9B37485846201D3A5803DE9@rambutan.pingpong.net> In-Reply-To: <20060714213224.GA60242@misty.eyesbeyond.com> References: <a6647e120607110914l28bf1b4bgb2e5bb761089b9d2@mail.gmail.com> <20060712164955.GA91888@misty.eyesbeyond.com> <a6647e120607130342y43e850b2r3deb6a778e2a9f22@mail.gmail.com> <e96es8$54r$1@sea.gmane.org> <a6647e120607140044x7607cafct5f6bee93075d3c92@mail.gmail.com> <44B796AE.4030506@nipsi.de> <44B7ED5C.8040102@pobox.sk> <20060714213224.GA60242@misty.eyesbeyond.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On fredag, juli 14, 2006 14.32.24 -0700 Greg Lewis <glewis@eyesbeyond.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 09:15:40PM +0200, martinko wrote: >> i did so and portversion says: >> >> diablo-jdk-freebsd6.i386.1.5.0.07.00 < needs updating (port has >> 1.5.0.07.00) >> >> what's wrong ?? > > Nothings wrong, the packages just have a "version" which is a little > bit naughty and ends up comparing to the port (which isn't naughty) > as an earlier version. Just curious, what is the reason behind having different package names for the port versus the package. It seems confusing to me. Also, since the port just installs a binary, couldn't it just install the package? It would cause less confusion, don't you think? BTW, I'm extremely happy to have diablo out, and especially that the amd64 platform i supported already. Thanks a lot, guys! /Palle
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E9B37485846201D3A5803DE9>