cvs commit: ports/astro/gpsdrive pkg-plist
ports/deskutils/hot-babe pkg-plist ports/deskutils/xchm
pkg-plist ports/editors/abiword-devel pkg-plist
kris at obsecurity.org
Wed Jun 15 16:19:04 GMT 2005
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:42:21PM +0200, Dejan Lesjak wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 of June 2005 14:11, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > Dejan Lesjak <dejan.lesjak at ijs.si> 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.
I agree. This should not cause anyone any hardship.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all/attachments/20050615/4ec751a2/attachment.bin
More information about the cvs-all