From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 3 23:09:40 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D18B16A41F; Sat, 3 Sep 2005 23:09:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ade@lovett.com) Received: from mail.lovett.com (foo.lovett.com [67.134.38.158]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9106C43D64; Sat, 3 Sep 2005 23:09:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ade@lovett.com) Received: from hellfire.lovett.com ([67.134.38.155]:61707) by mail.lovett.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.52 (FreeBSD)) id 1EBh8g-00016L-54; Sat, 03 Sep 2005 16:09:34 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1125784854.60066.16.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> References: <200509021957.j82JvKMW075037@repoman.freebsd.org> <1125784204.60066.13.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20050903215856.GA51280@xor.obsecurity.org> <1125784854.60066.16.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Ade Lovett Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 16:09:33 -0700 To: pav@FreeBSD.org X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.1 (Tiger) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734) Sender: ade@lovett.com X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.134.38.155 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ade@lovett.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mail.lovett.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports MOVED X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 23:09:40 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sep 03, 2005, at 15:00 , Pav Lucistnik wrote: > I did actually built all ports that uses bison before committing this > update, and I found single failure, which I handled using bison175 > port. Which bit of "no sweeping changes before 6.0-RELEASE" was unclear? Bison 2.0 is absolutely not backwards compatible with 1.75 (see all the fun and games with 1.875 as an example). Just because ports *build* with the new bison does not mean that they actually work correctly. If anything, devel/bison should have been left as-is, and a devel/bison20 brought in (along the lines of the existing bison1875 port). > More to say, that MOVED line does not prevent portupgrade from > updating > to 2.0, just tested it. I'd love to know the reasoning behind Ade's > commit. Because I was expecting you to do the right thing, and bring in devel/ bison20, and not blindly upgrade a port with a large number of consumers to an incompatible release, in the middle of a ports slush. The MOVED entry was a subtle hint towards the way things should have been done. Obviously, it was *too* subtle. Right now, the best thing you could do would be to revert the update of devel/bison back to 1.75 then *after* 6.0-RELEASE happens, bring up a devel/bison20, kill off devel/bison (at which point the MOVED entry will work), and manage the upgrade in a more appropriate manner. - -aDe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFDGi0tpXS8U0IvffwRAo8JAJ0dq5wKTP5wQWu89ff+10faduqKYgCfSEI/ uGiL+jAC1b+AM7JNuqqJNUE= =RVGj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----