[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Linimon) writes:
>> Second, the port version I wrote is anachronic, since some people may
>> have 1.46 installed (or prior 1.45.5 version, but PORT_REVISION can be
>> used here so this is not an issue). What's the correct way (or least
>> annoyance way) to handle this backt
Second, the port version I wrote is anachronic, since some people may
have 1.46 installed (or prior 1.45.5 version, but PORT_REVISION can be
used here so this is not an issue). What's the correct way (or least
annoyance way) to handle this backtime travel?
See PORTEPOCH
Also, PORT_REVISION is PO
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 12:45:34PM +0100, Michaël Grünewald wrote:
> First, this is not really a new port, but a revival of a dead one. is
> there specific issues with this?
No, just label it [new port], but put in the Description that it's
coming back from the Attic.
> Second, the port version I
Hi,
I want to give a new breath to the port lang/tuareg-mode.el. I has
been deleted becuase of the following issues:
1. broken use of the emacs variable
2. a new version (1.46) existed for a few monthes, but the software
author changed his mind and decided to remvove 1.46 from
distr
