On Sep 9, 2007, at 06:55, Blair Zajac wrote:
On Sep 8, 2007, at 9:39 PM, N_Ox wrote:
Le 8 sept. 07 à 22:04, Ryan Schmidt a écrit :
On Sep 8, 2007, at 08:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Revision: 28760
http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/changeset/
28760
Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2007-09-08 06:58:45 -0700 (Sat, 08 Sep 2007)
Log Message:
-----------
libtool:
* Added standard doc install.
Please don't forget to increment the port revision when you make
a change that causes the port to install different files. I've
been fixing this on the ones you've just committed.
From what I've understood until now, documentation files is not
relevant enough to increase revision number.
Nevertheless, it would not hurt that much to increase it and i
have never done it because i thought that was the current policy,
thanks again for noticing me it's not.
* Removed obsolete configure args and darwin 6 platform.
Why was the darwin 6 platform removed? Do you have knowledge that
it does not function anymore, or is not necessary anymore on
darwin 6? Unless you do, darwin 6 platforms should be left in
place. The latest consensus on darwin 6 was that although it is
no longer a supported platform, we would still accept patches to
fix things for darwin 6, and we should not deliberately break
darwin 6. At least that's what I recall. If we want to change
that policy now, then let's discuss that (and document the
outcome in the guide of course).
I thought unsupported things should be removed from portfiles.
Out of curiosity, does base still build on darwin 6?
Unless we know for sure that it doesn't work, we should leave the
support in there.
This is the previous thread I was thinking about, in which I
specifically asked what we should do about Jaguar support:
http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2007-June/001921.html
Daniel Luke said we shouldn't be opposed to accepting patches to make
broken things work on Jaguar; that means we also shouldn't
deliberately break Jaguar support:
http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2007-June/001923.html
Eric Hall said we shouldn't take actions to make life more difficult
for Jaguar users:
http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2007-June/001988.html
I requested that this be documented:
http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2007-June/001993.html
Blair Zajac was strongly in favor of retaining support for Jaguar
systems:
http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2007-June/001995.html
Boey Maun Suang was also in favor of leaving Jaguar code in:
http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2007-June/001997.html
Those were all the messages in the thread. Nobody voiced an opinion
against retaining the existing Jaguar support.
I don't really care one way or another. I just want there to be a
documented policy. If the policy is "keep Jaguar stuff", then let's
keep it. If the policy is "get rid of Jaguar stuff", then let's get
rid of it all right now.
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
