From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Sep 10 23:53:31 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7522716A41F;
	Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:53:31 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com)
Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 374FB43D46;
	Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:53:30 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com)
Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502)
	id 4EACD2CED; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:53:30 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:53:30 -0500
To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20050910235330.GB19364@soaustin.net>
References: <200509102222.j8AMMubj032724@bright.research.att.com>
	<432368BC.5000306@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <432368BC.5000306@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon)
Cc: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>, ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Unifying WWW: pkg-descr lines for cpan ports
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:53:31 -0000

On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 04:14:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> I respectfully disagree with Erwin, given that this change (at least the 
> first group) won't alter how anything works, I think it should be done 
> ASAP.

My personal interpretation of the "sweeping changes" rule is that it is
primarily designed to keep the current ports dependency tree as close as
lock-step to the packages that have already been built to go on the CDs.
So, if a tag has to slip on port X, we don't also have to slip tags on N
different dependent ports -- or, in the degenerate case, re-freeze the
tree and rebuild all the packages.  (I hope everyone can agree that we do
not want to do that!)

As well, things that change shared library revisions or meta-things
like KDE/GNOME/X are kept the same for similar reasons.

So under this interpretation, I would agree with Doug that this change
would be ok.

Any of the other portmgr members have an opinion?

mcl