Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 06:27:43 -0700 (PDT) From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: ady@warp.starnets.ro Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued Message-ID: <199708031327.GAA01671@blimp.mimi.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970802191206.5218A-100000@ady.warp.starnets.ro> (message from Penisoara Adrian on Sat, 2 Aug 1997 19:22:26 %2B0300 (EEST))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Not only that, the ports should be buildable on every version of * FreeBSD, if possible; it comes to my mind something like GNU's autoconfig * scripts... This is actually not the problem with the mechanism; it's basically that of manpower. If there is someone out there who is willing to spend the time to make all ports work for 2.1.7, I'm all for it. The problem is that we *have to* make the ports work on the next release, and that's why we need to choose 2.2-stable over 2.1.7 when we need to make a choice. As I said in the long message that started all this, we all have been working very hard to make all ports work on 2.2-stable, 3.0-current as well as 2.2.1R + upgrade kit and 2.2.2R + upgrade kit. (And it was working, until now.) Note that even if we choose to support 3.0-current instead, it won't be a pretty sight if tcl-8.0beta2 stays in the tree. Most of the tcl/tk ports are written for tk-4.[12], meaning they need tcl-7.[56]. So users will end up installing a new version into /usr/local anyway. This hardship of transition is exactly why I would like to avoid having tcl in the base system. * I'd really like to see *one* single ports tree, buildable on every * FreeBSD version; this might be hard, I know, but I think it well worths * working on it. Yeah, it's hard. ;) Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708031327.GAA01671>