From owner-freebsd-ports  Thu May  2 01:12:21 1996
Return-Path: owner-ports
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id BAA03849
          for ports-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 1996 01:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA03844
          for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Thu, 2 May 1996 01:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA18832; Thu, 2 May 1996 01:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
To: knarf@camelot.de (Frank Bartels)
cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: -current-ports under -RELEASE 
In-reply-to: Your message of "02 May 1996 07:49:44 GMT."
             <4m9peo$hf0@lancelot.camelot.de> 
Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 01:11:39 -0700
Message-ID: <18830.831024699@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> I think the -current-ports should work under the _latest_ release and
> if that is not possible, there should be a flag or something which
> says it is impossible to compile this port under -RELEASE, perhaps
> with a small explanation...

I think the flag idea is not just a bad idea - this issue has come up
before, and Satoshi usually makes the fair point that if he had to try
and track ports changes between both 2.2 and in 2.1-R, he'd go insane.
Setting a flag which says "this only works in release blah or later"
might be a nice compromise.  Maybe a regexp which matches against the
output of `uname -r', so you can get fancy if you've got a port which
runs against a truly select set of releases.

					Jordan