From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Nov 9 12:40:35 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA19189 for ports-outgoing; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 12:40:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from freenet.hamilton.on.ca (main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca [199.212.94.65]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA19184 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 12:40:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca [199.212.94.66]) by freenet.hamilton.on.ca (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA15378; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 15:40:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (ac199@localhost) by james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA01803; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 15:42:12 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca: ac199 owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 15:42:07 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Vanderhoek To: David Muir Sharnoff cc: James FitzGibbon , freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Re: Fresh postgres95 port In-Reply-To: <199611082339.PAA20282@idiom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ports@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, David Muir Sharnoff wrote: > > * I will take a look at your port, but I won't be committing it into the > * repository over the old one. I suggest that you work with the current > * maintainer (matt@bdd.net) instead of just taking a 'I can do it better > * attitude' to fixing problems. If everyone did that, we'd have another > * OpenBSD on our hands. 8-) [...] > I just want it fixed. As long as I was fixing, it I figured I would share > my work. I'm not sure if James was entirely joking with the OpenBSD reference... One of the factors in the formation of OpenBSD was a refusal to co-operate with a (new) port maintainer... (I'll admit that this's being somewhat simplistic, but...) As for the port working with -STABLE, the directory ports-current is called ports-current for a reason. Making a port backwards-compatible can be a definately bad-thing (IMO)... My suggestion would be not to change a port-current to work with -STABLE or -RELEASE, but rather throw it into some directory like ports-stable. Or, possibly, create and maintain a compatability library that can make some bsd.port.mk-old work with a -current port. (....actually, as I think about it, that's an interesting idea that's probably not as hard as it sounds initially) -- Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never! tIM...HOEk