From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 10 09:55:03 2005 Return-Path: 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 4254716A4CE for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:55:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com (out1.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEA6943D41 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:55:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imifumei@imap.cc) Received: from web1.messagingengine.com (web1.internal [10.202.2.210]) by frontend1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BB04C71725; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 05:54:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by web1.messagingengine.com (Postfix, from userid 99) id 56569338; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 05:54:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1113126899.21063.231518663@webmail.messagingengine.com> X-Sasl-Enc: tG/hjr0P5HyF5Gb6hBlb0ydcYlG0EhMJ0GlrsmdEcXNF 1113126899 From: "Tom Nakamura" To: "Kris Kennaway" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 1.5 (F2.73; T1.001; A1.64; B3.05; Q3.03) In-Reply-To: <20050410093620.GA54508@xor.obsecurity.org> Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 02:54:59 -0700 References: <1113124895.4417.231517896@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20050410093620.GA54508@xor.obsecurity.org> cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Breaking Fox-toolkit down into fox10, fox12, fox14, etc? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:55:03 -0000 On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 02:36:20 -0700, "Kris Kennaway" said: > On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 02:21:35AM -0700, Tom Nakamura wrote: > > I was thinking it would be a good idea to break down the fox-toolkit > > into 'fox10', 'fox12', 'fox14', and (recently) 'fox15', instead of the > > current 'fox' port (which tracks 1.0.x) and 'fox-devel' port (which > > tracks 1.4.x). I say this because > > 1) 'fox' is rather old, and 'fox-devel' is the development branch which > > is extremely new; having fox12 strikes a good balance; > > 2) the current version of 'ruby-fox' (fxruby.org) is geared for > > fox-1.2.x (which guarantees compatibiltiy), but instead with only a > > 'fox' and 'fox-devel', ruby-fox builds with fox-1.4.x, which may > > introduce incompatibilities. > > any thoughts? > > Only the versions that are acually useful should be in the ports > collection. e.g. if no ports need fox 1.0, it shouldn't be kept. I'd > be surprised if there was a need for 4 distinct versions. > > Kris You haven't check how many tk ports there are recently, have you :-)? Anyways, its mostly because developement on fox is extremely rapid, and fxruby (uses 1.2.x) and fxpy (uses 1.0.x i think) can't keep up, so they are still necessary; though 1.5.x is unneccesary, i think it would be a good idea to have at least a fox12 tom -- eyefull@eml.cc