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
> (I'm still learning, so please apologize my mistakes.)
Too many mistakes, please ignore it, I'll send new one later.