Projects with multiple versions in our ports tree

Jun Kuriyama kuriyama at
Fri Aug 13 00:16:23 PDT 2004

At Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:44:02 +0000 (UTC),
Doug Barton wrote:
> The way that we've traditionally handled this is to have one canonical 
> "foo" port, with various "fooNN" versions as needed. The negative part 
> of this is that when the older version of "foo" becomes obsolete and one 
> of the newer versions becomes the canonical one, we've had to do a lot 
> of swapping around, repo-copying, etc. in order to handle the situation. 
> At best this is sub optimal, and at worse it causes pointless delays and 
> confusion. It also causes pointless upgrades for users who already have 
> "fooNN" installed when "fooNN" becomes just plain "foo." I'd
> like to propose a different solution.

I'm using "foo" port as mainstream version and "fooXX" port as forked
/ obsoleted versions (and I think this tradition is still alive, isn't

Repo-copy is not swiss army knife.  We should use it only when it is
actually required.

Jun Kuriyama <kuriyama at> // IMG SRC, Inc.
             <kuriyama at> // FreeBSD Project

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list