Date: 10 Mar 2002 11:08:42 +0200 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@mail.ru> To: Alan Eldridge <alane@geeksrus.net> Cc: FreeBSD Ports List <ports@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: gettext vs gettext-devel Message-ID: <1015751079.509.9.camel@notebook> In-Reply-To: <20020310034141.GA16921@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> References: <20020310034141.GA16921@wwweasel.geeksrus.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-mqFrGntVKbFNJmhqbR+J Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2002-03-10 at 05:41, Alan Eldridge wrote: > A quick find+grep shows that ~150 ports require the devel/gettext > port, and ~65 require the gettext-devel port. >=20 > Considering that these two ports smash each others files, It is incorrect assertion - the ports in fact don't smash each others files. ports/devel/gettext-devel/pkg-plist is a stub, the real plist is generated on the fly. Check ports/devel/gettext-devel/Makefile for details. > how compatible is > gettext-devel? Is it safe to just use this one? Or is there a problem her= e? No, we can't use only one, because some ports only work with older one, while some only with newer one, therefore we need both to make everyone happy. -Maxim --=-mqFrGntVKbFNJmhqbR+J Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQA8iyGmoNu5t4iCBa8RApvRAJ92ibIy1NirtuUhQluxLapZzoiTFACeNyLu BlLCwWpxAb0X8gA4MmUx/vE= =jItp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-mqFrGntVKbFNJmhqbR+J-- 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?1015751079.509.9.camel>