Adam Weinberger wrote: > Setting PORTNAME=xed undoes any benefit of putting it in editors/x-ed, > as the PKGBASE will conflict. > The editors/x-ed location is merely temporary; I didn't even add it to INDEX pending a final consensus on what to do. > I agree that the current editors/xed looks completely abandoned (both > upstream and within the ports tree), and I have no objection to > replacing it. That said, I think the current port will need to be > deleted and the replacement svn add'ed. The port isn't actually being > "upgraded" to the new xed, and making the svn history seem that way > would serve no benefit. > > Even though it's likely that nobody is using the current xed, it > really should have a deprecation notice (backported to quarterly), > even if it's short. > Of course. The git diff shown doesn't do the whole process justice (hence "barring how git messed up file/path-level semantics"), as the new editors/xed actually needs repocopied from editors/gedit since xed originally forked from gedit. Putting a deprecation notice on the old editors/xed and MFHing it immediately sounds good.
-- Charlie Li …nope, still don't have an exit line. (This email address is for mailing list use; replace local-part with vishwin for off-list communication if possible)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
