On 01/05/2007, at 15:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yves de Champlain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Monday, April 30, 2007
at 8:51
PM -0800 wrote:
Is there any reason why we shouldn't just update gimp to the
current gimp-2 version? Nothing depends upon it according to
pipping's find_dependents.pl script.
good idea, if no objections come in, I'll just do that.
I don't get it. So we'll have duplicate ports with different names?
For now, yes, but I reckon that, since nothing depends on gimp, we
can just keep increasing its version to 3.x.x or whatever it becomes
in the future, while leaving gimp2 as the latest 2.x.x release. This
is a bit new compared to the naming scheme that seems to have been
used so far, but I think would be sensible for those people and
packages that want to track the latest and greatest, while giving an
option for sticking with earlier versions where necessary. I've been
thinking about this with respect to the docbook ports, too,
particularly with the impending version 5 release. I envisage
something like:
docbook412 (4.1.2)
docbook43 (4.3.x)
docbook44 (4.4.x)
docbook45 (4.5.x)
docbook4 (4.x.x)
docbook50 (5.0.x)
docbook5 (5.x.x)
docbook (whatever the latest is)
There might be consequences, however, how we maintain ports in
future, and it also seems like a bit of a departure from how things
have been done before, so it might be best to hold off until there
has been some wider discussion, especially on macports-dev (where
I've been intending to raise this anyway). Still, I think that the
fact that people are expecting the gimp port to be the latest version
is understandable and a sensible thing to try to conform to.
Kind regards,
Maun Suang
--
Boey Maun Suang (Boey is my surname)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
