Quoting Boris Samorodov <email@example.com> (Sun, 25 Mar 2007 01:59:52 +0300):
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:07:35 +0100 Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > Quoting Boris Samorodov <firstname.lastname@example.org> (from Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:14:35 +0300):
> > > For upcoming FC6 ports I propose to use PKGNAMEPREFIX=linux-fc6-
> > Would it make sense to do this for all fedora based ports, even for
> > fc4 (I talk about linux-fc4 obviously)?
> When we were changing default linux_base (at least the last time) we
> had changed all infrostructure ports as well at once. There had been
> no need to create other ports. With linux_base-fc6 introduction it
> should be another play: both linux_base ports will coexist for a long
> time (along with their infrostructure ports).
> About fc4 ports. Have to think a little...
> > Do we gain something from this? Maybe some consistence for the future?
> Yes, it seems to me a bad idea to have two packages with the same name
> but for different linux_base ports. And for sure a consistence play a
> good role here.
I don't question the fc6 part. My question was more "Do we gain
something when we add fc4 as well?".
"What is that thing?"
"We think you're bugged.... Try and relax...."
-- Neo and Trinity, "The Matrix"
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137