>> Given the naive view that a larger version number implies something a >> bit more current and "-devel" implies something a bit more >> development- oriented, shouldn't the libtool-devel port either be >> renamed or deleted altogether? Ryan> The "-devel" suffix indicates a development Ryan> (non-production-quality, pre-release) version of a port, according Ryan> to the definition of the developer of the software. Sorry, I'm used to common convention in the Linux arena where the XXX-devel package contains the .h files and such necessary to compile code that uses XXX, while XXX is a binary containing the libXXX library (.so files, etc). Ryan> To what would you suggest the port name be changed? I think the Ryan> name "libtool-devel" is accurate, since the port does install a Ryan> development version of libtool. Ryan> It can be deleted, but presumably the better course of action Ryan> would be to update it to the latest development version of Ryan> libtool. Although, according to Ryan> http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/, 1.9f is the latest Ryan> development version, though it is over 3 years old. I guess the Ryan> 2.1a version is newer, but they seem to be releasing daily new Ryan> versions of 2.1a, which isn't helpful. Given that it's unmaintained, I can't see that deleting it should be all that big a deal. It's apparently way behind the current development bleeding edge (which as you suggest might leave one pretty bloody to use it). I guess that given the meaning of "-devel" (is that a consistent meaning throughout MacPorts?), it's best left as-is. Once burned, twice shy, so I will stay away from -devel packages in the future unless there is no alternative. Thanks, Skip