-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Ports cvsup'ed yesterday,
$ cat /usr/ports/devel/bison/Makefile
{snip}
PORTNAME= bison
PORTVERSION= 1.75
PORTREVISION= 2
{snip}
Is there any particular reason why ports are sticking with this version when
1.875 was released 2 years ago almost to the day?
- --
G. Stewart - gstewart@bonivet.net
Always the dullness of the fool is the whetstone of the wits.
-- William Shakespeare, "As You Like It"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFB2n2kK5oiGLo9AcYRAvP1AJ94si7rV5CgrmHyudIprYhnHBNyMQCeN5SI
C62CGyfi6Fvg+xrZeuiihyM=C/hS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tuesday 04 January 2005 03:27 am, Godwin Stewart wrote:> Ports cvsup'ed yesterday, > > $ cat /usr/ports/devel/bison/Makefile > {snip} > PORTNAME= bison > PORTVERSION= 1.75 > PORTREVISION= 2 > {snip} > > Is there any particular reason why ports are sticking with this > version when 1.875 was released 2 years ago almost to the day?If you have an uptodate port system you will find Port: bison-1.875_4 Path: /usr/ports/devel/bison1875 Kent -- Kent Stewart Richland, WA http://users.owt.com/kstewart/index.html
Godwin Stewart wrote:> Is there any particular reason why ports are sticking with > this version when 1.875 was released 2 years ago almost to > the day?>From the first commit comment of devel/bison1875:Some grammars require the new version of Bison (such as PostgreSQL), however the new bison also breaks many many ports. Compromise with a new port. Installs as bison and _not_ bison1875 and should be mutually exclusive to the main bison port. Hopefully the bison authors will clean up their product and this port can disappear when the base bison port is updated in the future or enough ports are updated to work with newer versions of bison. http://www.freshports.org/devel/bison1875/ Regards Bj?rn
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 12:27:32PM +0100, Godwin Stewart wrote:> Ports cvsup'ed yesterday, > > $ cat /usr/ports/devel/bison/Makefile > {snip} > PORTNAME= bison > PORTVERSION= 1.75 > PORTREVISION= 2 > {snip} > > Is there any particular reason why ports are sticking with this version when > 1.875 was released 2 years ago almost to the day?Yes, the bison developers apparently don't understand why a widely-used build tool should need to remain backwards-compatible with itself (see also: autoconf, automake developers). Kris -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20050104/59f95004/attachment.bin