On 27 September 2011 10:18, Anton Shterenlikht <mexas_at_bristol.ac.uk> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:28:49AM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote: >> On 09/27/11 08:35, h h wrote: >> >Kevin Oberman<kob6558_at_gmail.com> writes: >> > >> >>On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Ade Lovett<ade_at_freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> >> >>>With the advent of the conversion of HEAD to 10.0-CURRENT and, as to be >> >>>expected, ports/ is going to be essentially unusable for a while. >> >>> >> >>>The issue stems from configure scripts (to choose something completely >> >>>at random) assuming that FreeBSD would never jump to a double-digit >> >>>major version number, and as such, various regexps for "freebsd1*" (ie: >> >>>FreeBSD 1.1.x) are now matching "freebsd10". >> >[...] >> >> >> >>aDe, >> >> >> >>Could an entry to this effect be added to UPDATING (with a matching >> >>entry when ports/ is "unbroken"). >> > >> >Also mention a workaround, e.g. >> > >> > $ export UNAME_r='9.9-BLAH' >> >> >> Now I understand why some OS vendors have choosen the latin 10 'X' for >> their tenth version of their operating system ... > > At least there will be a long rest after > the move to 10 is complete.. until FreeBSD 100. > I'm afraid not; freebsd2*) We'll be just as screwed at 20. Hopefully we can fix that at the same time. ChrisReceived on Tue Sep 27 2011 - 13:03:42 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:18 UTC