cvs commit: ports/astro/gpsdrive pkg-plist ports/audio/gqmpeg-devel pkg-plist ports/databases/pgworksheet pkg-plist ports/deskutils/hot-babe pkg-plist ports/deskutils/xchm pkg-plist ports/editors/abiword-devel pkg-plist ports/games/crimson ...

Dejan Lesjak dejan.lesjak at
Wed Jun 15 12:42:27 GMT 2005

On Wednesday 15 of June 2005 14:11, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Dejan Lesjak <dejan.lesjak at> wrote:
> > Well, if they are empty, why not? It is actually rather unavoidable. I
> > could be missing something, but this is how I understand things:
> Technically we don't need to update the revisions, but our policy (as far
> as I understand it) is: if the plist changes, we bump the revision.
> I will not complain if you don't bump the revisions of affected ports (e.g.
> when nobody else thinks the ports need a revision bump), I just mentioned
> the common practice so far.

Sure, and I'm just trying to explain why I think the bump is not needed in 
this case and hopefully make you agree on this :) Basically I was trying to 
stick with this part of Porter's Handbook:

A rule of thumb is to ask yourself whether a change committed to a port is 
something which everyone would benefit from having (either because of an 
enhancement, fix, or by virtue that the new package will actually work at 
all), and weigh that against that fact that it will cause everyone who 
regularly updates their ports tree to be compelled to update. If yes, the 
PORTREVISION should be bumped.

And I did not think that this change is compelling enough to cause everyone to 
update this ports.


More information about the cvs-all mailing list