Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 18:04:32 +0200 From: Dejan Lesjak <dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> To: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@rtp.freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Ports with duplicate LATEST_LINKS Message-ID: <200605091804.33074.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> In-Reply-To: <200605071756.k47HuSvD033837@8ball.rtp.FreeBSD.org> References: <200605071756.k47HuSvD033837@8ball.rtp.FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday 07 May 2006 19:56, Kris Kennaway wrote: > Dear port maintainers, > > The following list includes ports maintained by you that have duplicate > LATEST_LINK values. They should either be modified to use a unique > LATEST_LINK or suppressed using NO_LATEST_LINK, to avoid overwriting > each other in the packages/Latest directory. If your ports conflict with > ports maintained by another person, please coordinate your efforts with > them. > > > Thanks, > Kris "Annoying Reminder Guy II" Kennaway > LATEST_LINK PORTNAME MAINTAINER > ========================================================================== > git devel/git anholt@FreeBSD.org > git misc/git ports@FreeBSD.org > imake devel/imake-4 x11@FreeBSD.org > imake devel/imake-6 x11@FreeBSD.org IIRC it was agreed that since imake-4 and imake-6 don't both produce packages on same FreeBSD version LATEST_LINK could stay as it is for both. Is it still OK if things stay like this or should ports/96293 be committed? (Or was it never OK and I just misremembered?) Dejan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200605091804.33074.dejan.lesjak>