cvs commit: ports MOVED

Ade Lovett ade at
Sat Sep 3 16:09:40 PDT 2005

Hash: SHA1

On Sep 03, 2005, at 15:00 , Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> I did actually built all ports that uses bison before committing this
> update, and I found single failure, which I handled using bison175  
> port.

Which bit of "no sweeping changes before 6.0-RELEASE" was unclear?   
Bison 2.0 is absolutely not backwards compatible with 1.75 (see all  
the fun and games with 1.875 as an example).

Just because ports *build* with the new bison does not mean that they  
actually work correctly.  If anything, devel/bison should have been  
left as-is, and a devel/bison20 brought in (along the lines of the  
existing bison1875 port).

> More to say, that MOVED line does not prevent portupgrade from  
> updating
> to 2.0, just tested it. I'd love to know the reasoning behind Ade's
> commit.

Because I was expecting you to do the right thing, and bring in devel/ 
bison20, and not blindly upgrade a port with a large number of  
consumers to an incompatible release, in the middle of a ports  
slush.  The MOVED entry was a subtle hint towards the way things  
should have been done.  Obviously, it was *too* subtle.

Right now, the best thing you could do would be to revert the update  
of devel/bison back to 1.75 then *after* 6.0-RELEASE happens, bring  
up a devel/bison20, kill off devel/bison (at which point the MOVED  
entry will work), and manage the upgrade in a more appropriate manner.

- -aDe

Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)


More information about the cvs-ports mailing list