On 6/5/2014 6:05 PM, Erich Dollansky wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:09:53 -0500
Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
That decided it was a good idea to completely break ports to force
people to upgrade? You couldn't come up with a warning system
instead of outright breaking ports? The idiots are apparently
running the asylum. {{sigh}}
this is the reason why I am asking for versions on the ports tree since
a decade. Ok, we have the revision now. Just go back in the revision
until it works. It is a good practice to make a note of the revision of
the running ports tree you have before updating it.
We do have that. We have RELEASE_X_EOL tags that identify the last
known-good ports tree for a given major branch. Unfortunately, this
time the break happened in the middle of the 8.x lifespan, so there is
no handy EOL tag.
Perhaps a RELEASE_x_y_EOL tag would be a useful thing to add whenever
there is a break like this? It certainly would be an easier mnemonic to
say "check out the RELEASE_8_3_EOL tag" instead of "check out R112358".
Hell, the prior's even self-documenting if someone happened to stumble
across http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/tags/.
We already have tags going back through 20 years of releases (just in
case you want a ports tree that works with release 2.0.5) and an
established policy of tagging for "last known good" at the major level.
I don't think a few more tags are going to hurt if it saves someone
the hassle of dancing up to the line of an API/ABI break.
_______________________________________________
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"
