Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:23:47 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> Cc: emulation@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [patch] bsd.linux-rpm.mk: PKGNAMEPREFIX for FC6 ports Message-ID: <20070325212347.770f4551@Magellan.Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <01060071@bsam.ru> References: <11780964@bsam.ru> <20070324230735.mniaxvuq044o0sog@webmail.leidinger.net> <01060071@bsam.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> (Sun, 25 Mar 2007 01:59:52 +0300): > On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:07:35 +0100 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> (from Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:14:35 +0300): > > > > For upcoming FC6 ports I propose to use PKGNAMEPREFIX=linux-fc6- > > > Would it make sense to do this for all fedora based ports, even for > > fc4 (I talk about linux-fc4 obviously)? > > When we were changing default linux_base (at least the last time) we > had changed all infrostructure ports as well at once. There had been > no need to create other ports. With linux_base-fc6 introduction it > should be another play: both linux_base ports will coexist for a long > time (along with their infrostructure ports). > > About fc4 ports. Have to think a little... > > > Do we gain something from this? Maybe some consistence for the future? > > Yes, it seems to me a bad idea to have two packages with the same name > but for different linux_base ports. And for sure a consistence play a > good role here. I don't question the fc6 part. My question was more "Do we gain something when we add fc4 as well?". Bye, Alexander. -- "What is that thing?" "We think you're bugged.... Try and relax...." -- Neo and Trinity, "The Matrix" http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070325212347.770f4551>