Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:45:17 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@rover.village.org> To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Cc: fenner@parc.xerox.com, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Versioning bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <E0x1wpq-00052M-00@rover.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 22 Aug 1997 04:00:39 PDT." <199708221100.EAA06524@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> References: <199708221100.EAA06524@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199708221100.EAA06524@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> Satoshi Asami writes: : Actually, looking at yours and itojun's patch, I was wondering...can : we use the date in the $Id$ field in the port's Makefile? We should : make it just a warning (because there just may be no newer : bsd.port.mk) but this is zero additional burden for the port : committers and probably enough information for clueless users to get : the latest bsd.port.mk if something goes wrong. Hmmm. I'm not sure that that is even foolproof. If you are making changes to the bsd.port.mk file while I'm making changes to the gerbils port. My changes get in first, and then yours. My changes depend on version n-1 of the bsd.port.mk file, but version n breaks it. I'd not get a warning, and it wouldn't work. This may be an acceptible race to have, but something strikes me as wrong here for some reason. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0x1wpq-00052M-00>