Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:26:07 +0300 From: Alexander Churanov <alexanderchuranov@gmail.com> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> Cc: Alexander Sack <pisymbol@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: fresh devel/boost Message-ID: <3cb459ed0903111826p3f3fbae5g922401edd0b37701@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49B68FB6.8060505@icyb.net.ua> References: <49ABED6D.8080909@icyb.net.ua> <3c0b01820903020819s65adc166qd0d707ce8820b3b9@mail.gmail.com> <3cb459ed0903061347w599c521ex34267fd168882cac@mail.gmail.com> <49B68FB6.8060505@icyb.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/3/10 Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua>: > > I agree with the "better" approach, but why wait for months until all deadlines > are passed if we can create boost 1.38 port right now and then shuffle ports > around later. I think that happened quite a few times in the past. The issue is devel/boost and devel/boost138 will not coexist. Is it OK in your opinion? Since patch is ready for months, providing devel/boost138 is a matter of several minutes. > >> My comments on the suggested solution: >> The goal is to have most recent boost by default in devel/boost. Of >> course, it is possible to provide 1.38 in some separate location. >> However, this would make ports look like we stuck to 1.34 forever and > > Well, about this argument - I'd prefer something objective over something > subjective any time, and how things "appear" is very subjective. The objective part of it is it will be slightly harder for a novice to figure out what port to install. Having most recent stable port in devel/boost is more easier to understand. >> Having multiple versions of the same ports installed at the same time >> is nice idea... > > It seems we have some very good examples like openldap ports. Thank you for example, I am examining it. Alexander Churanov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3cb459ed0903111826p3f3fbae5g922401edd0b37701>