AH>> However, the way I think it should go in the ideal situation, is that AH>> the haproxy port should contain the latest and greatest stable release AH>> (1.4.x), and the haproxy-devel port should go to the latest experimental AH>> snapshot.. If you think keeping a 1.3.x tree alive is usefull (which I AH>> do), create a port haproxy13 for that..
JR> I agree with Angelo's ideal situation. I would just fix the JR> versioning issue rather than just bandage it now and still have to JR> fix it later. Version 1.3 should move to haproxy13, haproxy JR> should be 1.4, and haproxy-devel should probably be removed until JR> there is a new snapshot/beta/rc worthy of a port. Make sure JR> UPDATING is very clearly documented with what is happening. I agree as well in moving -devel to haproxy13 as well, but there's one point that's stopping/delaying me doing that: The -devel port is being maintained by someone else. :-) The main port is currently marked as unmaintained, so easier to make the changes. Also, changing -devel right now at the same will cause all sorts of support issues as people deal with the migration - not everyone reads the UPDATING file before issuing "portupgrade -a". I'll leave the -devel port as is for the moment, but can submit changes for it if the other maintainer would like. Cheers, Ross. --
