I'm not sure what the general rules are with this, but I've noticed that <port>-devel allows people who are so inclined to get closer to the bleeding edge, presumably forewarned that what they are running is of a markedly different status. Let people work with the -devel branch and decide from there when the 2.1 branch is sufficiently stable to replace 2.0 in the standard port.
On 15 Mar 2011, at 19:12, Dan Ports wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 08:52:45AM -0600, Frank Schima wrote: >> The official Macfuse site says 2.0.3,2 is the latest version [1]. Where are >> you seeing 2.1.7? > > My understanding is that MacFUSE has effectively been abandoned by its > author, and 2.0.3,2 is the latest released version (so, not > surprisingly, it's the one available in the port) > > There's been some work in the community about creating a newer version, > and in particular on getting 64-bit kernel support. Ticket #26115 has > some links to relevant threads. As far as I know all of this is pretty > experimental. > > As the macfuse port's maintainer, I'm not entirely opposed to updating > the port to an "unofficial" version if there's not going to be another > "official" release. (Though the thought does make me uneasy -- is there > any precedent for doing that?) But I certainly don't want to update to > a version that's also unstable. > > Dan > > -- > Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAIL http://drkp.net/ > _______________________________________________ > macports-users mailing list > macports-users@lists.macosforge.org > http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
