Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 09:53:01 -0700 From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: peter@spinner.dialix.com, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-lib@freefall.freebsd.org, jkh@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/tcl Makefile patch01 patch02 Message-ID: <199606191653.JAA15610@austin.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Jun 1996 15:49:19 %2B0930." <199606190619.PAA00203@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Smith said: > John Polstra stands accused of saying: > > > > The sources should be imported in their distributed form, onto the > > vendor branch. Then the necessary patches should be committed as deltas. > > > > This is not the same as a port, and it shouldn't be treated like one. > > It _is_ a port, and it _should_ be treated like one, modulo a few changes. Here are the key differences, as I see them: 1. Ports don't attempt to keep their distfiles in the CVS repository. This thing does, and that's a big mistake, IMHO. 2. Ports generally try to keep up-to-date with the latest release. In the main source tree, we don't, shouldn't, and probably won't do that. (Examples: gcc and perl.) Again: It's madness to put a *.tar.gz.uu file into the CVS repository! -- John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606191653.JAA15610>