From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Apr 11 0:22:16 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mgr1.xmission.com (mgr1.xmission.com [198.60.22.201]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4766A37B41D for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 00:22:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [207.135.128.145] (helo=misty.eyesbeyond.com) by mgr1.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 16vYuF-0003CD-00; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 01:22:08 -0600 Received: (from glewis@localhost) by misty.eyesbeyond.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g3B7Lxr96068; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:51:59 +0930 (CST) (envelope-from glewis) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:51:58 +0930 From: Greg Lewis To: Jan Stocker Cc: "ports@FreeBSD. ORG" Subject: Re: May someone commit this.... Message-ID: <20020411165158.A95958@misty.eyesbeyond.com> References: <20020405111935.A39525@databits.net> <000001c1dcd6$bfa295a0$fe02010a@twoflower.liebende.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <000001c1dcd6$bfa295a0$fe02010a@twoflower.liebende.de>; from Jan.Stocker@t-online.de on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:19:03PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi Jan and all, On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:19:03PM +0200, Jan Stocker wrote: > Okay... i've attached the new version. Matthew Emmerton told me that some > changes have taken place in ports-support and PRs really will be processed > (i waited over one year for this port to be added). So i'll next use the old > and correct way, pls excuse for disturbing you all. > > Attached a new patch (replacing the old one i've send) I haven't fully reviewed your patch, but I see that it upgrades the nethack3-gnome to nethack 3.4.0. I have no problems with what it does technically, but I think maybe we need to rethink how the nethack ports are done as a whole. I'd also like to point out PR 36576 which also updates nethack3, nethack3-tty and nethack-qt and makes the latter two slave ports of the former. This seems a sensible strategy in this case. However, I still don't think that does the right thing in terms of naming these ports. For instance, if we apply that PR or a combination of it and the patch you attached then we will have two plain nethack ports, one (nethack) being 3.2.3 and the other (nethack3) being 3.4.0. This seems a little odd. I would propose we do the following with respect to naming: 1. Repo copy nethack (and the appropriate satellite ports) to nethack32 (or nethack32-foo). This will be nethack 3.2.0. 2. Repo copy nethack3 & co. to nethack33 etc. This will be nethack 3.3.1. 3. Also repo copy the ports in step 2. to nethack34 and apply the appropriate patches to bring them up to version 3.4.0. If people think this is too confusing, or is too many versions of nethack (heresy!) then I accept that, although I still think something needs to be done about naming. If we do go with this then I'll probably produce nethack31 and nethack30 ports as well ;). If we want one port, it should be the latest. If we want multiple versions then we shouldn't overwrite one of the current ports to update to a newer version and we need to fix the naming. Comments? -- Greg Lewis Email : glewis@eyesbeyond.com Eyes Beyond Web : http://www.eyesbeyond.com Information Technology To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message