Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 14:52:22 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9?= Ladan <rene@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: UPDATING entry for X.org changes Message-ID: <20100507125222.GA60179@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <19428.1748.805406.173416@jerusalem.litteratus.org> References: <19428.941.605850.331539@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <j2ne890cae61005070520qf68713d7v4354384415d1fa9e@mail.gmail.com> <19428.1748.805406.173416@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 08:25:56AM -0400, Robert Huff wrote: >=20 > =3D?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ren=3DE9_Ladan?=3D writes: >=20 > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Is there one? =A0I've been checking daily, and ... no= thing. > > > (Various sited, including just now "cvsup.freebsd.org:.) > > > > No, there is indeed none for now. >=20 > Obvious question: why not? Even if all it says is "use > 'portmaster -af' or portupgrade equivalent", isn't having such a > huge event go unremarked in front-line documentation a Bad Idea(tm)? No, not really. The entries in UPDATING are really only intended for the cases where the Usual Procedures(tm) for updating are not sufficient and the user needs to take some kind of special action. For the recent X.org change users are not supposed to need to do anything special when upgrading, and thus there is no need for an entry in UPDATING. The size of the upgrade is not really relevant for if it gets an entry in UPDATING or not, only if some kind of special action is needed. --=20 <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100507125222.GA60179>