Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 07:29:00 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami), marcel@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/linux-devel - Imported sources Message-ID: <19990709232901.056C278@overcee.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Jul 1999 15:59:12 MST." <199907092259.PAA62745@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Steve Kargl wrote: > Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote: > > * Import of linux-devel; the replacement of linux_devel. The port is > > * also made "alpha ready". The compiler installed is egcs. Not gcc. > > * The old port (as is linux_lib) is going to be removed when all > > * dependencies have been checked. > > > > Another repository copy candidate, imported without a copy. :< > > > > Why is a repository copy mandated? If Marcel (or anyone for that matter) > completely rewrites and re-organizes an (orphaned) port to make it > more useful, then what purpose does a repo copy service. Saving history > does not seem like a valid answer when the history does not belong > to the new port. Because the rewrite is part of the evolution of the port itself. The only time it's generally ok to re-import rather than copy is when a port was imported under the wrong name or place and there is nothing to preserve by copying it. As a general rule, we *always* repository copy (or are supposed to), with this one particular exception. Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990709232901.056C278>