Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 16:54:37 -0700 From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: asami@freebsd.org (Satoshi Asami) Cc: CVS-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/lang/modula-3 Makefile ports/lang/modula-3/files mtree.in ports/lang/modula-3/pkg DESCR PLIST ports/lang/modula-3/scripts configure fix_pathnames ports/lang/modula-3/patches patch-ab patch-ac patch-ad patch-ae patch-af patch-ag patch-ah patch-ai patch-aj patch-ak patch-al patch-am patch-an patch-ao patch-ap patch-aq patch-ar patch-as patch-at patch-au patch-av patch-aw patch-ax patch-ay patch-az patch-ba patch-bb patch-bc patch-bd patch-be patch-bf patch-bg patch-aa Message-ID: <199609102354.QAA12542@austin.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 10 Sep 1996 15:43:26 PDT." <199609102243.PAA01349@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> * Confession: In the original version of the Modula-3 port, I used > * a major version number of 353 for the shared libraries, to correspond > * with the SRC version number 3.5.3. That was a dumb move -- I should > * have used 1. > > That's quite right. But I'm also guilty for not stopping you when you > told me to take a look at the port before import. ;) Hey, it was my blunder, not yours. Quit trying to steal the credit for my accomplishments! :-) > 354??? Now that doesn't make much sense. What are you going to > do when SRC releases 3.5.4? Change it to 355, and get even more embarrassed than I already am? :-( "That Polstra, he's always a step ahead of the game!" > Fortunately, this upgrade is compatible in source level (meaning > cvsup and virtualpaper users can use either this version or the > older version, and ld.so will ensure that the correct library is > used), so why don't you put on a helmet and jump back to 1? You > can add a pre-install target that warns users loudly to remove the > old version and recompile the two utilities that require it. Frankly, I'm in favor of that idea. I think that in this case, it might be worth going against the Prime Directive, and lowering the major version number down to something reasonable. This port is only used by two other ports, and it's probably not used for anything else under FreeBSD. I control one of the other ports, and the other one is out of date with respect to its distfile, anyway. (Also, it has some other problems that I haven't told its maintainer about yet.) There aren't any commercial binaries that depend on our port of Modula-3. So it seems pretty safe. I think I'd like to change the version number to 2, because somebody besides me actually had a different port long ago that used 1. I will wait until tomorrow, and see whether any screams of agony and/or derision arise from the other listeners. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609102354.QAA12542>