On Wed Jun 4 22:18:38 2014, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 6/4/14, 11:19 PM, Drewery, Bryan wrote:
On 6/4/14, 2:26 AM, Eitan Adler wrote:
On 2 June 2014 23:35, Baptiste Daroussin <b...@freebsd.org> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:46:38PM -0700, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 19:58:31 -0500, Bryan Drewery writes:
Not sure if anyone cares, but this change breaks all ports tree
checkouts from before 2014-05-05 on src head with this revision.
Yes, an older ports tree would need an older bmake (or fmake).
Are we saying ports is *not* ready for that hack to be removed?
IMHO it is, just people has to be aware of that :)
ports-announce@ is the correct location for this announcement :)
I think that would just confuse people. I don't think this is worthy
of such a big announcement. I can write up something to current@ and
ports@ though. It's really only an issue if you are trying to use
older ports tree and why would you anyway in most cases?
We have a scenario where we check out a ports tree at one revision,
but then need to slide parts of it back and forth to get to a specific
revision of a port that we need. We can not affort to re-verrify every
port revision every month, so it stays at an old revision generally
but individual ports my upgrade if there is a security risk or may
remain on anold revision if a newer version breaks thins for us. (it
happens).
If that breaks we will not be happy
Are you running head base though and frequently updating?
I too use an older ports tree in various places, but not following head
enough where it matters much.
--
Regards,
Bryan Drewery
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
