freebsd-buildutils and freebsd5-buildutils (was: no subject)

[Robert Millan]

On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 03:47:22PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> 
> I'm not Robert, but perhaps I can give a partial answer.
> 
> First of all, I assume you really mean "freebsd-buildutils" and
> "freebsd5-buildutils" here.
> 
> If you diff the changelogs you will see that freebsd5-buildutils is
> clearly derived from freebsd-buildutils, this is the first changelog
> entry in freebsd5-buildutils not in freebsd-buildutils:
> 
> +freebsd5-buildutils (5.3-1) unstable; urgency=low
> +
> +  * Fork for 5.x branch (package been renamed).
> +    - patches/02_silly_macros.diff:  Sync.
> +
> + -- Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org>  Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:14:35 +0100
> 
> If the meaning of this is "let's rename the package so that we can
> break compatibility with 4.x", then I assume we could happily drop the
> old freebsd-buildutils package.

Actualy the meaning was slightly different:  "let's rename the package so that
we can break compatibility with 6.x"  (note that similar forking was done in
the kfreebsd6 package, just diff the changelogs).

The reason kfreebsd5-source has that weird depends is that it's made up in a
way that it'd work for any branch of freebsd sources.  Built dynamicaly from
a generator template, it works like this:

Template: freebsd@major@-buildutils | freebsd-buildutils (>= @major@)

On 5.x: freebsd5-buildutils | freebsd-buildutils (>= 5)

  this is correct since both satisfy it, but freebsd5-buildutils is preferred
  since freebsd-buildutils is 6.x

On 6.x: freebsd6-buildutils | freebsd-buildutils (>= 6)

  this is correct since only freebsd-buildutils satisfies it.  once
  freebsd6-buildutils is created, it'll be preferred and freebsd-buildutils
  will shortly be unsuitable afterwards.

-- 
Robert Millan