From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Aug 29 18: 8:55 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mail.HiWAAY.net (fly.HiWAAY.net [208.147.154.56]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E7F715133; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:08:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sprice@hiwaay.net) Received: from localhost (sprice@localhost) by mail.HiWAAY.net (8.9.1a/8.9.0) with ESMTP id UAA13862; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 20:07:42 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 20:07:41 -0500 (CDT) From: Steve Price To: Chris Piazza Cc: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami , FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: USE_QT2 in bsd.port.mk In-Reply-To: <19990829175424.C34749@norn.ca.eu.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Chris Piazza wrote: #>> Is it incompatible with QT-1.4*? #> #> Not at all. # # Err, misread that. It is not at all compatible with qt-1.4x Speaking of incompatible and repository copies... Does anyone but me think it would be a good idea to put this port in a directory like qt200 instead of qt2, since we've had a history of having at least 3 of these things around for a long time. If we moved the port to a new directory, Satoshi could do a repo-copy first, Chris could commit the good bits over that, and then we could kill off qt2. If having qt200 is too much, how about having a qt2xx/qt2x/qt20x/qt20 instead. If the past is any indication we'll soon have 3 different versions of QT2 laying around along with 3 versions of QT1 to support all the ports in the tree. :/ -steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message