On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 08:08:02PM -0500, Jiri B wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:05:00PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > On 2018/02/22 04:59, Jiri B wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:21:54AM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote: > > > > As for the update itself, i have no opinion. You decided to use 2.1 on > > > > your clients, you assume the choice... > > > > > > Do you want to keep old stable? Should I create new 'branch' > > > for 2.1.x or just update current port? > > > > Since a client may be stuck with an old server that is difficult to get > > updated, carrying multiple branches might be useful. And since this is > > unlikely to be a build dep of other ports, there should be no requirement > > to avoid a conflict between the two. > > I have no idea how to solve this - no conflict, thus one could have > old server and would like to install new client or vice-versa. > What to do with configuration files? I have no opinion. > > Anyway, here's my current diff. > > - I did not touch old port, just move it and made branches > - 2.1.28 does not need some old patches and it uses autoconf/automake > now > > > (I'm still learning, so please apologize my mistakes.)
Too many mistakes, please ignore it, I'll send new one later. Jiri
