Why there is a newer OOo port than the binary?

[Heino Tiedemann]

Nicolas Blais <nb_root at videotron.ca> wrote:

>> > 2.0.4 is not officially released yet.
>> > The one in the ports tree is a release
>> > candidate. I assume a 2.0.4 binary will be made when 2.0.4 goes out of
>> > RC. Anyway, there are problems with 2.0.4 so you are still better off
>> > with 2.0.3 right now...
>>
>> Too me Okay, but the pkg-version output is annoying.
>>
>> Why the 2.0.4 canditate is allready in editors/openoffice.org-2.0?
>>
>> Shouldn't it be in editors/openoffice.org-2.0-devel? Then the
>> portscollection and the installed package will be the same.
>>
>> Too mee it looks, that the OpenOffice.org port is the only one, who
>> "breakes" with the convention between "XYZ" and "XYZ-devel" ports.
>>
>> Heino
>
> Actually, it doesn't really break the convention. The openoffice-2.0-devel 
> port is based on the latest OO source tree. This means that it's pointing 
> towards 2.1. Since the source is always changing (in development), it would 
> not be a good release candidate (for testing) prior to a 2.0.X release.
>
> In simpler words, the RC are correctly put in openoffice-2.0 so that people 
> (like me) can test and point out the problems of a frozen code tree (or 
> release candidate) prior to the release of 2.0.X, contrary to -devel which is 
> always in development.

Okay, I Understand. 

But, it is not good, to put rel-candidates into the stable tree.
Maybe another port subtree is the solution? At least your explanation
sounds like..

Maybe

editors/openoffice.org-2.0-rc OR
editors/openoffice.org-2.0-milestones

Please anderstand also my point of view: I never can do "portupgrade
-a", because of the "outdated" OOo-Port (I do not like to kompile
OOo. It takes to much time, and several times it has failed).

Heino