Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 13:07:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Meyer <mwm@phone.net> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: install newer version over old one... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910091254450.357-100000@guru.phone.net> In-Reply-To: <19991009101642.A80651@rucus.ru.ac.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote: :-> :->On Fri 1999-10-08 (22:15), Scot W. Hetzel wrote: :->> Then the ssh2 port needs to have it's package name changed to ssh2-2.0.13. :->No, it shouldn't. :->I mean, at one stage we had vim, and vim5, where vim was version :->4, and vim5 was version 5. I agree in general, but disagree in this instance. :->You can't expect to have a vim-4.3.2 package and a vim5-5.0.1 :->package. Question - can we expect that everyone will *eventually* move to vim 5? Or, for my favorite example, the gtk1# ports - don't we expect that eventually the earlier versions will vanish as other ports move to the new ones? :->What we really need is a mechanism to show the scope of upgrades :->- whether ssh-2.0.0 _really_ upgrades ssh-1.2.27. Unless "really" means "we can expect all users to move to some point in the future", this isn't right. From what I can tell, ssh2 upgrades ssh1 in every technical sense. Unfortunately, the new licensing restrictions mean that some people can't or won't use the newer version, and support is coming from a group other than the original developers. So what we really have are two *different* products from a common code base. Possibly what I'm arguing is that the "mechanism" you're asking for be the package name - sans version number, and package/port names that include a version number as part of the name should be avoided at all costs. <mike 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.4.10.9910091254450.357-100000>