Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 23:52:04 +0400 (MSD) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.ru> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu>, Kevin Eliuk <kevin_eliuk@sunshine.net>, FreeBSD-Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, peter@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Error installing pine-3.96 Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970331235051.594A-100000@nagual.ru> In-Reply-To: <E0wBmu5-0007AB-00@rover.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Warner Losh wrote: > : > It is in 2.2, but not 2.1.7. The original poster was using 2.1.7. > : > : So, it is not an issue at all, this port should work for 2.2 :-) > > This is not an issue for Jordan's proposed plan. This is an issue if > there is a simple thing that can be done to make ports more useful on > 2.1.x, which so far hasn't been shown by people asking me to make this > change. But as I remember Jordan talk about 2.2 compatibility only, not 2.1.7 compatibility... What is real subject now? 2.2, 2.1 or both compatibility? -- Andrey A. Chernov <ache@null.net> http://www.nagual.ru/~ache/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970331235051.594A-100000>