[28760] trunk/dports/devel/libtool/Portfile

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Sep 9, 2007, at 06:55, Blair Zajac wrote:

> On Sep 8, 2007, at 9:39 PM, N_Ox wrote:
>
>> Le 8 sept. 07 à 22:04, Ryan Schmidt a écrit :
>>
>>> On Sep 8, 2007, at 08:58, source_changes at macosforge.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> Revision: 28760
>>>>           http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/changeset/ 
>>>> 28760
>>>> Author:   nox at macports.org
>>>> Date:     2007-09-08 06:58:45 -0700 (Sat, 08 Sep 2007)
>>>>
>>>> Log Message:
>>>> -----------
>>>> libtool:
>>>>  * Added standard doc install.
>>>
>>> Please don't forget to increment the port revision when you make  
>>> a change that causes the port to install different files. I've  
>>> been fixing this on the ones you've just committed.
>>
>> From what I've understood until now, documentation files is not  
>> relevant enough to increase revision number.
>> Nevertheless, it would not hurt that much to increase it and i  
>> have never done it because i thought that was the current policy,  
>> thanks again for noticing me it's not.
>>
>>>>  * Removed obsolete configure args and darwin 6 platform.
>>>
>>> Why was the darwin 6 platform removed? Do you have knowledge that  
>>> it does not function anymore, or is not necessary anymore on  
>>> darwin 6? Unless you do, darwin 6 platforms should be left in  
>>> place. The latest consensus on darwin 6 was that although it is  
>>> no longer a supported platform, we would still accept patches to  
>>> fix things for darwin 6, and we should not deliberately break  
>>> darwin 6. At least that's what I recall. If we want to change  
>>> that policy now, then let's discuss that (and document the  
>>> outcome in the guide of course).
>>
>> I thought unsupported things should be removed from portfiles.
>> Out of curiosity, does base still build on darwin 6?
>
> Unless we know for sure that it doesn't work, we should leave the  
> support in there.

This is the previous thread I was thinking about, in which I  
specifically asked what we should do about Jaguar support:

http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2007-June/001921.html

Daniel Luke said we shouldn't be opposed to accepting patches to make  
broken things work on Jaguar; that means we also shouldn't  
deliberately break Jaguar support:

http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2007-June/001923.html

Eric Hall said we shouldn't take actions to make life more difficult  
for Jaguar users:

http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2007-June/001988.html

I requested that this be documented:

http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2007-June/001993.html

Blair Zajac was strongly in favor of retaining support for Jaguar  
systems:

http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2007-June/001995.html

Boey Maun Suang was also in favor of leaving Jaguar code in:

http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2007-June/001997.html

Those were all the messages in the thread. Nobody voiced an opinion  
against retaining the existing Jaguar support.

I don't really care one way or another. I just want there to be a  
documented policy. If the policy is "keep Jaguar stuff", then let's  
keep it. If the policy is "get rid of Jaguar stuff", then let's get  
rid of it all right now.