Breaking Fox-toolkit down into fox10, fox12, fox14, etc?

[Kris Kennaway]

On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 02:54:59AM -0700, Tom Nakamura wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 02:36:20 -0700, "Kris Kennaway"
> <kris at obsecurity.org> said:
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 02:21:35AM -0700, Tom Nakamura wrote:
> > > I was thinking it would be a good idea to break down the fox-toolkit
> > > into 'fox10', 'fox12', 'fox14', and (recently) 'fox15', instead of the
> > > current 'fox' port (which tracks 1.0.x) and 'fox-devel' port (which
> > > tracks 1.4.x). I say this because 
> > > 1) 'fox' is rather old, and 'fox-devel' is the development branch which
> > > is extremely new; having fox12 strikes a good balance;
> > > 2) the current version of 'ruby-fox' (fxruby.org) is geared for
> > > fox-1.2.x (which guarantees compatibiltiy), but instead with only a
> > > 'fox' and 'fox-devel', ruby-fox builds with fox-1.4.x, which may
> > > introduce incompatibilities. 
> > > any thoughts?
> > 
> > Only the versions that are acually useful should be in the ports
> > collection.  e.g. if no ports need fox 1.0, it shouldn't be kept.  I'd
> > be surprised if there was a need for 4 distinct versions.
> > 
> > Kris
> 
> You haven't check how many tk ports there are recently, have you :-)?

Of course I'm well aware of that, but it's a different case: all of
those versions are in use, though we'd like to be able to remove the
old ones.

> Anyways, its mostly because developement on fox is extremely rapid, and
> fxruby (uses 1.2.x) and fxpy (uses 1.0.x i think) can't keep up, so they
> are still necessary; though 1.5.x is unneccesary, i think it would be a
> good idea to have at least a fox12

Kris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20050410/7ada1ddb/attachment.bin