Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 10 Apr 2005 02:36:20 -0700
From:      Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
To:        Tom Nakamura <imifumei@imap.cc>
Cc:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Breaking Fox-toolkit down into fox10, fox12, fox14, etc?
Message-ID:  <20050410093620.GA54508@xor.obsecurity.org>
In-Reply-To: <1113124895.4417.231517896@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References:  <1113124895.4417.231517896@webmail.messagingengine.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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=20
> 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.=20
> 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

--3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFCWPOUWry0BWjoQKURAlzgAKD+drrHoxA0NgAY+GvkxHf3hFg7vgCgt4n3
wufkB/JA668QHocM6ciOCHE=
=yuVJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050410093620.GA54508>