Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 22:57:47 -0500 From: Randall Hopper <aa8vb@pagesz.net> To: Kris Kennaway <kkennawa@physics.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ANN: Fxtv 0.48 Message-ID: <19990206225747.A5522@pagesz.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.4.05.9902071300310.15932-100000@bragg>; from Kris Kennaway on Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 01:08:57PM %2B1030 References: <19990206133233.A5755@pagesz.net> <Pine.OSF.4.05.9902071300310.15932-100000@bragg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris Kennaway: |On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, Randall Hopper wrote: |So, you don't need libjpeg here. Thanks. I'd gotten another reply to that effect as well, so for this specific case, sounds like nuking jpeg is the easiest way to stay compatible with the current branch releases (2.2.8, 3.0) and 4.0-current. |> I'd like to have one port that builds on all versions, particularly those |> that are released (2.2.8 and 3.0). So my basic question is, how to cook |> this universal port? | |When your port update gets committed, how are people going to have access |to it unless they update their ports collection (cvsup, whatever)? If |they update their ports collection, they at the same time get the current |port framework for libjpeg, and everything else. If they try and only |update one collection (e.g. ports-graphics) then in this case it will |still work, since fxtv and jpeg are both in graphics. In general however, |people are expected to upgrade the whole lot at once if they want to |upgrade at all, otherwise things will not work. Update the entire ports collection whenever you want the latest-and-greatest of one utility? Does that mean removing existing packages, fetching the new ports and any updated src packages, and rebuilding the port world). That's pretty extreme (and not practical for most folks). Possibly fine for folks with a T1 or ADSL line, a better connection to the FreeBSD site than we east-coasters have (PacBell, MAE-West, etc.), lots of hard drive space, and no local software that isn't FreeBSD-package-based. I've got a 56K, custom software, stick to releases/snaps, and don't sup. I've got this feeling I'm not alone. For that reason, I'd like the port to support the latest -RELEASEs (2.2.8, 3.0). Development branch support (-stables and -current) is a plus of course so the port can be checked in, updated as the port world evolves, and bundled with the next target -RELEASE. |In other words, build your ports against the 'head' of the ports collection |(where things are now) - it's the only supported ports collection for all |FreeBSD releases. I'm confused as to what you mean by "head". Do you mean, -stable? For example, 3.0-stable is the only supported ports/package collection for 3.0-RELEASE? I think have must have misunderstood. If I didn't, it seems to me that folks buying/running a FreeBSD -RELEASE ought to be able to install it and go fetch latest-and-greatest software/utils off the web that they can build for -RELEASE and register with the FreeBSD package manager without having to try to sup part/all of -stable. -stable and -current are development branches afterall. The average user probably runs -RELEASE. Thanks, Randall 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?19990206225747.A5522>