2009/3/10 Andriy Gapon <a...@icyb.net.ua>: > > I agree with the "better" approach, but why wait for months until all > deadlines > are passed if we can create boost 1.38 port right now and then shuffle ports > around later. I think that happened quite a few times in the past.
The issue is devel/boost and devel/boost138 will not coexist. Is it OK in your opinion? Since patch is ready for months, providing devel/boost138 is a matter of several minutes. > >> My comments on the suggested solution: >> The goal is to have most recent boost by default in devel/boost. Of >> course, it is possible to provide 1.38 in some separate location. >> However, this would make ports look like we stuck to 1.34 forever and > > Well, about this argument - I'd prefer something objective over something > subjective any time, and how things "appear" is very subjective. The objective part of it is it will be slightly harder for a novice to figure out what port to install. Having most recent stable port in devel/boost is more easier to understand. >> Having multiple versions of the same ports installed at the same time >> is nice idea... > > It seems we have some very good examples like openldap ports. Thank you for example, I am examining it. Alexander Churanov _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
