Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 16:29:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Philip Hallstrom <philip@adhesivemedia.com>, Chris Piazza <cpiazza@jaxon.net>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FYI: Missing DISTNAME for netpbm 8.4... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005021624570.44965-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <vqcya5tbbjp.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2 May 2000, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote:
> I've thought about adding some sort of "timeout" in bsd.port.mk, so
> users will have to upgrade their ports-base collection from time to
> time, to ensure they will all have a reasonably new bsd.port.mk. What
> do you guys think?
I think this is the wrong solution. If I install a 4.1 ports collection
and use the 4.1 distfiles [*], it should continue to work for all time,
because otherwise people without internet connectivity are screwed.
The problem here is that people are not updating ports-base at the same
time as they update ports-foo - ports-base is a mandatory collection.
Perhaps we need to make this more obvious in the docs, or implement some
kind of technical solution which makes it impossible (or much harder) for
people to not update them both at once.
Kris
[*] I know we don't ship distfiles on the WC CDs anymore, but thats beside
the point - another distribution of FreeBSD might do this, and in fact
there has been talk of a periodic ports-collection only release including
all distfiles.
----
In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
-- Charles Forsythe <forsythe@alum.mit.edu>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0005021624570.44965-100000>