linux gnome libraries etc.

[Alexander Leidinger]

Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam at ipt.ru> (Fri, 15 Feb 2008 23:38:36 +0300):

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:43:58 +0100 Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam at ipt.ru> (from Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:35:21 +0300):

> > >> > The port won't ever be updated. More likely a new port, say
> > >> > linux-f7-glib2 will appear after the default osrelease is switched
> > >> > to 2.6.x.
> 
> > I'm not happy with creating a new port, but maybe it is the only good
> > solution we can do. I didn't think much about installing a different
> > version depending on the default linux port, but I don't like this
> > idea much, as it may result in a nightmare. Informed opinions (with a
> > list of bad things and why it doesn't matter) in favour of this are
> > welcome.
> 
> So far I know one idea why it looks bad to me (to have one port) and
> why I prefer to speak about two ports (actually it means dubbling all
> linux infrastructure ports):
> . we won't have packages for non-defaults.

This is the least annoying problem (additionally I think we can get
version X packages for e.g 6.x and version Y packages for e.g. 7.x if
done correctly). :)

I expect more problems for people which try to update without reading
UPDATING, and I expect that there need to be some additional logic in
bsd.port.mk. Plist handling and other things may be more messy.

BTW: I don't like to have f7 or such in the port names, I think k26
(like kernel 2.6) or 26e (like 2.6 emulation) would be better in the
long term.

Bye,
Alexander.

-- 
BOFH excuse #36:

dynamic software linking table corrupted
http://www.Leidinger.net  Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org     netchild @ FreeBSD.org  : PGP ID = 72077137