the future of xemacs21

[Adam Weinberger]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>> (04.22.2003 @ 0150 PST): Gary Jennejohn said, in 0.9K: <<
> The question now is, what do we do with xemacs21? xemacs-21.1.14,
> which is what's in xemacs21, is now considered historical. But
> there are so many other ports which depend on xemacs21 that it may
> well be a good idea to keep xemacs21 around and create new ports
> to track xemacs.
> 
> So I'd like to get a consensus. Do we delete xemacs21 after all the
> ports which depend on it are updated to depend on xemacs? Or do we
> want to keep xemacs21 and add new ports to depend on the new xemacs?
>> end of "the future of xemacs21" from Gary Jennejohn <<

Performing a sweep of the ports tree and updating all xemacs21
references to point to xemacs is a simple matter. Every time a port is
repocopied into a directory that specifies a version number, this ends
up happening. IMO the right thing to do is branch the OLD version into
its own directory, and keep the original directory as the current. For
example, branch kde2 stuff into x11/kde2, and make x11/kde be version 3.
The FreeBSD/GNOME project is about to run into this problem, too.

# Adam


- --
Adam Weinberger
vectors.cx	>>	adam at vectors.cx
FreeBSD.org	<<	adamw at FreeBSD.ORG
#vim:set ts=8: 8-char tabs prevent tooth decay.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE+pQ4Do8KM2ULHQ/0RAvgHAJ0TQJ1sIAdH49ZPezQzUate6/mXfACdG+Id
VSGNzOxDqGBqg2E7XQTcKag=
=f+Rl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----