alexanderchuranov at gmail.com
Wed Mar 11 18:26:09 PDT 2009
2009/3/10 Andriy Gapon <avg at icyb.net.ua>:
> I agree with the "better" approach, but why wait for months until all deadlines
> are passed if we can create boost 1.38 port right now and then shuffle ports
> around later. I think that happened quite a few times in the past.
The issue is devel/boost and devel/boost138 will not coexist. Is it OK
in your opinion? Since patch is ready for months, providing
devel/boost138 is a matter of several minutes.
>> My comments on the suggested solution:
>> The goal is to have most recent boost by default in devel/boost. Of
>> course, it is possible to provide 1.38 in some separate location.
>> However, this would make ports look like we stuck to 1.34 forever and
> Well, about this argument - I'd prefer something objective over something
> subjective any time, and how things "appear" is very subjective.
The objective part of it is it will be slightly harder for a novice to
figure out what port to install. Having most recent stable port in
devel/boost is more easier to understand.
>> Having multiple versions of the same ports installed at the same time
>> is nice idea...
> It seems we have some very good examples like openldap ports.
Thank you for example, I am examining it.
More information about the freebsd-ports