On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 00:20 +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > Joe Marcus Clarke píše v čt 10. 11. 2005 v 12:27 -0500: > > On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 09:39 +0000, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > > > pav 2005-11-10 09:39:15 UTC > > > > > > FreeBSD ports repository > > > > > > Modified files: > > > databases/evolution-data-server/files > > > > > > patch-addressbook_backends_ldap_e-book-backend-ldap.c > > > Added files: > > > databases/evolution-data-server/files > > > > > > patch-addressbook_backends_groupwise_e-book-backend-groupwise.c > > > > > > patch-calendar_backends_groupwise_e-cal-backend-groupwise.c > > > patch-camel-groupwise-folder.c > > > patch-camel-groupwise-utils.c > > > > > > patch-libedataserverui_e-name-selector-entry.c > > > > > > patch-servers-exchange-storage-e-folder-exchange.c > > > > > > patch-servers-groupwise-e-gw-connection.c > > > > > > patch-servers-groupwise-e-gw-item.c > > > Log: > > > - Fix build on 4.X > > > > I didn't want to do this. It's clear the Evo people don't want these > > patches, and it will be too difficult to maintain them from version to > > version. We don't support Evo on 4.X anymore, and these patches should > > be dropped. > > I needed this for a new port that used pygnomeextras. This was a single > port I needed to fix. Does this mean that committers are free to stop > testing ports on 4.X?
Not necessarily, but we agreed to stop supporting/testing GNOME Desktop ports on 4.X. This is one such ports. > > If the patches do not apply after the next release, you're free to just > delete them. Yes, but another potential problem with these kind of patches is accidentally introducing a problem for all users when trying to fix the build for 4.X users. The Evo ports are especially problematic since they declare variables all over the place, but don't want to support GCC < 3.0. Joe -- PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
