From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Oct 16 15:45:51 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A3216A418
	for <ports@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:45:51 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from scf@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from mail.farley.org (farley.org [67.64.95.201])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 019F113C447
	for <ports@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:45:50 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from scf@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from thor.farley.org (thor.farley.org [192.168.1.5])
	by mail.farley.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l9GF9x64039825
	for <ports@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:09:59 -0500 (CDT)
	(envelope-from scf@FreeBSD.org)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:09:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Sean C. Farley" <scf@FreeBSD.org>
To: ports@FreeBSD.org
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.0.9999.0710160952520.1342@thor.farley.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
	autolearn=ham version=3.2.3
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on mail.farley.org
Cc: 
Subject: Versioning question for linux-ut port
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:45:51 -0000

I have been working with Martin Tournoij, who did the hard work, on
updating the linux-ut port to support different versions of UT99 (GOTY,
Anthology, etc.).  He also discovered that the v451 patch had issues
with the keyboard.

After a little reading on my part, I found that in most cases the v451
patch was more suited for servers while v436 was best on clients with
both being network compatible.

Here is the question:  how should the port's version information be
configured to have v436 be the default with v451 (WITH_451PATCH) as an
option?  With PORTVERSION set back to 436 from 451, does PORTEPOCH need
to be set to 1?  I am uncertain since the port will support both
versions.  Would PORTREVISION=1 be better than using PORTEPOCH since if
the user wanted to stay with v451, the install may be a little different
anyway?

Here is the latest port of linux-ut[1].

Sean
   1. http://www.farley.org/freebsd/tmp/linux-ut-port.tar.bz2
-- 
scf@FreeBSD.org