From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Aug 29 18:19: 3 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.14]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E89E15133 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:19:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from asami@stampede.cs.berkeley.edu) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id UAA23038; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 20:15:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: from sji-ca5-176.ix.netcom.com(209.109.234.176) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma023032; Sun Aug 29 20:15:12 1999 Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.hip.berkeley.edu (8.9.3/8.6.9) id SAA45626; Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:14:35 -0700 (PDT) To: Steve Price Cc: Chris Piazza , FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: USE_QT2 in bsd.port.mk References: From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) Date: 29 Aug 1999 18:14:32 -0700 In-Reply-To: Steve Price's message of "Sun, 29 Aug 1999 20:07:41 -0500 (CDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 14 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * From: Steve Price * # 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 Great idea. I was going to suggest this myself after getting Chris's response, but you beat me to it. :) So, what's it going to be? It's qt-2.0.1 now, so is qt201 ok, Chris? Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message