UPDATING - needs updating?
itetcu at people.tecnik93.com
Mon Nov 21 20:57:46 GMT 2005
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 14:13:35 -0500
Wesley Shields <wxs at csh.rit.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 08:39:55AM -0800, Vizion wrote:
> > Hi
> > I have noticed that some earlier notices relating to some ports in
> > UPDATING appear as though they have been made out of data by newer
> > notices (e.g kde 20050804 seems to replace 20050324) and sometimes
> > the instructions conflict with one another. While I presuime the
> > latest notice always takes precedence I wonder if it would be
> > possible to have notices that are no longer current removed from
> > UPDATING.
> I think this is probably a bad idea, simply from a historical
> perspective. If I wanted to chase down a bug that was available only
> for a specified time period I would like to know the corresponding
> UPDATING entries.
there are enough old machines out there for which the "old"
instructions still apply; in some cases it might not be able to update
w/o intermediary steps.
IOnut - Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
"Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect"
Youth doesn't excuse everything.
-- Dr. Janice Lester (in Kirk's body), "Turnabout Intruder",
More information about the freebsd-ports