Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 15:42:07 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> To: David Muir Sharnoff <muir@idiom.com> Cc: James FitzGibbon <james@nexis.net>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Re: Fresh postgres95 port Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961109153208.28926A-100000@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca> In-Reply-To: <199611082339.PAA20282@idiom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.3.95.961109153208.28926A-100000>