Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:02:15 +0100 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: autoconf/automake guru wanted [gnuplot-4.0 with patches] Message-ID: <20070918180215.1eede8dc@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <op.tyuzmnmc9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> References: <46EFE5E6.9000602@cosmozilla.net> <20070918172922.32c0b904@gumby.homeunix.com.> <op.tyuzmnmc9aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:48:13 -0500 "Jeremy Messenger" <mezz7@cox.net> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:29:22 -0500, RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> > wrote: > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:51:18 -0700 > > Ted Thomas <tthomas@cosmozilla.net> wrote: > > > >> I'm sorry if this sounds like a complaint. I just spent 2 days > >> attempting to salvage a sane 6.2 development box which does not use > >> X-Windows, because I stumbled into the Xorg quagmire. Recognizing > >> that the ports system is itself a remarkable achievement, I would > >> distill my concern down to one thing: naming conventions. > >> > >> Example 1: autoconf/automake > >> > >> autoconf-2.59_3 = up-to-date with port > >> autoconf-2.61_2 = up-to-date with port > > These two are no problem, they are different ports. > > > >> autoconf-wrapper-20070404 = up-to-date with port > >> .. > >> automake-wrapper-20070404 = up-to-date with port > > > > This shouldn't happen, do you have multiple entries in /var/db/pkg? > > Did you misread it? :-) The *-wrapper is correct and normal. > Yes, I just saw auto****-wrapper-20070404 twice. In that case there's no issue here at all.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070918180215.1eede8dc>