Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 16:51:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Philip Hallstrom <philip@adhesivemedia.com> Cc: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.org>, Chris Piazza <cpiazza@jaxon.net>, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FYI: Missing DISTNAME for netpbm 8.4... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005021650020.44965-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005021634400.46274-100000@illiad.adhesivemedia.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2 May 2000, Philip Hallstrom wrote:
> True.. but what if in your 4.1 bsd.port.mk it specified a version number,
> say 4.1. Then, in all the ports themselves there would be a defination
> for "need at least port version xxx". Then bsd.port.mk can check to see
> if it's capable of processing that particular port.
This is what NetBSD and OpenBSD have done, but it seems like kind of an
ugly solution to me - it requires extra work when we break
backwards-compatability (must update the REQUIRES_VERSION of every
affected port and commit the changes), and is prone to being forgotten. I
didn't want to mention it because I'd hoped someone would come up with a
better idea.
Kris
----
In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
-- Charles Forsythe <forsythe@alum.mit.edu>
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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0005021650020.44965-100000>