niamkik <niam...@protonmail.com> writes: >> For interpreters there's often good reason to have multiple versions >> (see php, python, lua, ruby) and if there's a good reason and >> somebody is willing to maintain then I wouldn't object to that. >> (That latter point is key though, if it's not going to be actively >> maintained then it really wants keeping simple). > > It's quite okay for me. I am documenting the process right know to maintain > each individual version of Erlang for OpenBSD. It should be easier for me in > few days/weeks.
I would still strive for the minimal number of erlang version to keep. If all the dependent ports software can be built with a single (most supported?) version we'll come out ahead with less stuff. >> Most of the dependencies are either already broken (riak, rabbitmq), >> or can handle at least up to 23 (rebar3, elixir). The others are rebar >> (no longer maintained and only used in ports as a dependency of riak) >> and tsung (no indication whether it will work or not and doesn't exactly >> seem active upstream). >> >> (riak is a bit special anyway, seems they really want it to be built with >> a patched Erlang..) > > I started to rework on these ports with previous ported version. I have this > list: > > - benchmarks/tsung > - databases/riak > - devel/rebar > - devel/rebar3 > - lang/elixir > - net/rabbitmq > > The goal is to also add other Erlang application directly in the ports like > VerneMQ or Wings3D for example. Let the application requirements guide the set of compilers to support. Thanks Greg
